Planet Rugby Forum

I like haggis wrote:

Jonas wrote: Indeed

This mornings judgement for the Hedge Fund is an outrage & like most the Remoaners their failure to accept a democratic vote is disgraceful. All it does is to further complicate the landscape.

You seem to be confused. At no point in the judgement did they say Brexit should not happen. At no point in their submissions did they say Brexit should not happen.

This is what sovereignty actually is, it's pretty simple really.

This is tyranny not democracy, says party with single MP

UKIP has asserted that democracy can only be upheld if everyone does what they and their single MP demands.

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, speaking because UKIP’s elected leader was forced to resign by people who did not agree with the result, said Britain risks having its future decided by an unelected group of ideologues.

He continued: “Democracy means something, and if it can be overridden by those who are unable to gain power legitimately it is no longer democracy but something much darker.

“I do not care who in the media elite supports these fanatics, who are determined Britain will bend to their will and tell whatever lies it takes to get their way.

“UKIP will certainly vote for hard Brexit in Parliament. Well, I hope we will. I’m not on speaking terms with our MP right now.”

openclashXX wrote:we need that General Election now more than ever so we can sort this cluster f*ck out, Theresa May needs to earn her mandate properly not slide in through the back door and seize control of an event that would permanently change the course of this country over the next century

piquant wrote:

haunch wrote:

wilber wrote: Personally, i don't think the High Court decision will change much. I didn't like Mrs May's belief that she had some mandate to overrule the will of parliament though

At the same time parl could have had a vote on this if it wanted, in an opposition day or something. Odd for the courts to make them.

Can Parliament pass a law or amendment that allows the PM to trigger a50?

message #2527204 wrote:

openclashXX wrote:we need that General Election now more than ever so we can sort this cluster f*ck out, Theresa May needs to earn her mandate properly not slide in through the back door and seize control of an event that would permanently change the course of this country over the next century

A general election wouldn't change the result of the referendum - and do you really think Corbyn could beat anyone in a GE?

iarmhiman wrote: The MPs who cover constituencies that had majority leave votes have to vote that way as well.

MorseCode wrote:

Daily Mail focusing on what's important. Everyone knows gays hate democracy.

Mahoney wrote:Good and important judgement. It was pretty disgraceful in this day and age to suggest that the executive could unilaterally make calls like this based on a .

Sad that people lack the good sense to see the bigger picture outside their narrow partiality. This is a win for parliament, not remain. The vast probability is that the government will win the vote on triggering Article 50.

If we're going to Brexit we really ought to have a general election to elect a government on a specific mandate to implement Brexit. I think it should be a constitutional principle that in the event of the government losing a referendum of this magnitude for the future, parliament should immediately be dissolved and the people given the opportunity to elect a parliament that is explicitly prepared to implement that decision. Our constitution jut isn't set up for a referendum providing a popular mandate to do something the majority of members of parliament think is a bad idea.

Sandstorm wrote:

MorseCode wrote:

Daily Mail focusing on what's important. Everyone knows gays hate democracy.

Which one has the biggest house?

Hellraiser wrote:

MungoMan wrote:

paddyor wrote:

Dai another day wrote:A genuinely disgusting decision.

I genuinely despair.

If this goes how I expect it to go then there is no notion of democracy in the UK. Just a facade.

Nigel Farage saying this will provoke huge public anger - It will.

For me personally...well, I will never set foot in a polling station again.

Why is it so disgusting? It's the law. Basically, in a situation where a non binding referendum takes place, parliament has final say.

So why have a plebiscite wearing the clothes of a referendum in the first place?

This will end in tears. The question is: whose? But here's a hint.

The fact the UK citizens who actually voted Brexit do not comprise the totality of those eligible will count for fúckall to those who voted for Brexit in good faith. They will feel betrayed, and with good cause.

Should Parliament says Brexit: Yeah Nah, the Home Counties spivs and their middle-class provincial mates will of course snigger and sneer at folk with unfashionable accents. But when city centres start blazing merrily, and when personal safety becomes a pressing issue for Tarquin and Calliope Stoat-Felcher, the laughter will cease.

And I may have something diverting to watch on telly in the rugby off-season after all.

Because Cameron is a weak-willed fvckwit who got bullied by a bunch of malcontent backbenchers.

Labour will continue to push for Britain to leave the European Union following the ruling by the High Court.

Jeremy Corbyn has called on the government to bring its Brexit negotiating terms to parliament after the High Court ruled Theresa May cannot bypass MPs and peers when she triggers Article 50.

He announced Labour will continue to press for a "Brexit that works for Britain" and has called for greater transparency from the government.

MorseCode wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

I like haggis wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

The Sun God wrote:If there were a vote in the Commons today, stay or go, how would you guys imagine it would end up ?

Pretty sure it would be a solid remain- but people are overlooking the civil disorder that would tear the country apart.

What civil disorder are you thinking would happen? I can't really see it to be honest.

I think Parliament would pass Brexit anyway, they kind of have to, they'd just make sure it was a soft Brexit.

You should get out more then- while online debates about Brexit are mostly in a civil manner, building sites and pubs around the country are full of people who believe they have 'won'. There would be major riots.

I thought building sites were filled with Poles. And that that was the problem.

I like haggis wrote:

Mahoney wrote:Good and important judgement. It was pretty disgraceful in this day and age to suggest that the executive could unilaterally make calls like this based on a .

Sad that people lack the good sense to see the bigger picture outside their narrow partiality. This is a win for parliament, not remain. The vast probability is that the government will win the vote on triggering Article 50.

If we're going to Brexit we really ought to have a general election to elect a government on a specific mandate to implement Brexit. I think it should be a constitutional principle that in the event of the government losing a referendum of this magnitude for the future, parliament should immediately be dissolved and the people given the opportunity to elect a parliament that is explicitly prepared to implement that decision. Our constitution jut isn't set up for a referendum providing a popular mandate to do something the majority of members of parliament think is a bad idea.

Excellent post. It's a win for Parliamentary sovereignty which is what Leave voters claim they want yet they still wet the bed. People clearly have absolutely no idea what sovereignty actually is.

openclashXX wrote:

Labour will continue to push for Britain to leave the European Union following the ruling by the High Court.

Jeremy Corbyn has called on the government to bring its Brexit negotiating terms to parliament after the High Court ruled Theresa May cannot bypass MPs and peers when she triggers Article 50.

He announced Labour will continue to press for a "Brexit that works for Britain" and has called for greater transparency from the government.

The people voted for a military coup, says Theresa May
03-11-16

THE UK has already voted for the overthrow by force of Parliament, the House of Lords and the judiciary, the prime minister has asserted.

Speaking from the head of a fleet of tanks driving down the mall, May said that she has a mandate to shell the House of Commons, send Lords into exile and imprison all judges indefinitely without trial.

May said: “In the last vote Britain will ever have, and the only one that counts, I was chosen as the country’s president-for-life with extraordinary and unlimited powers.

“Any attempt to claim otherwise, for example by supporting one of the opposition parties made illegal by decree this morning, is an act of revolution.”

She added: “Also, I always had this moustache. Can’t be a proper dictator without a moustache.”

zzzz wrote:

I like haggis wrote:

Mahoney wrote:Good and important judgement. It was pretty disgraceful in this day and age to suggest that the executive could unilaterally make calls like this based on a .

Sad that people lack the good sense to see the bigger picture outside their narrow partiality. This is a win for parliament, not remain. The vast probability is that the government will win the vote on triggering Article 50.

If we're going to Brexit we really ought to have a general election to elect a government on a specific mandate to implement Brexit. I think it should be a constitutional principle that in the event of the government losing a referendum of this magnitude for the future, parliament should immediately be dissolved and the people given the opportunity to elect a parliament that is explicitly prepared to implement that decision. Our constitution jut isn't set up for a referendum providing a popular mandate to do something the majority of members of parliament think is a bad idea.

Excellent post. It's a win for Parliamentary sovereignty which is what Leave voters claim they want yet they still wet the bed. People clearly have absolutely no idea what sovereignty actually is.

And if MPs block it?

Hellraiser wrote:

MungoMan wrote:

paddyor wrote:

Dai another day wrote:A genuinely disgusting decision.

I genuinely despair.

If this goes how I expect it to go then there is no notion of democracy in the UK. Just a facade.

Nigel Farage saying this will provoke huge public anger - It will.

For me personally...well, I will never set foot in a polling station again.

Why is it so disgusting? It's the law. Basically, in a situation where a non binding referendum takes place, parliament has final say.

So why have a plebiscite wearing the clothes of a referendum in the first place?

This will end in tears. The question is: whose? But here's a hint.

The fact the UK citizens who actually voted Brexit do not comprise the totality of those eligible will count for fúckall to those who voted for Brexit in good faith. They will feel betrayed, and with good cause.

Should Parliament says Brexit: Yeah Nah, the Home Counties spivs and their middle-class provincial mates will of course snigger and sneer at folk with unfashionable accents. But when city centres start blazing merrily, and when personal safety becomes a pressing issue for Tarquin and Calliope Stoat-Felcher, the laughter will cease.

And I may have something diverting to watch on telly in the rugby off-season after all.

Because Cameron is a weak-willed fvckwit who got bullied by a bunch of malcontent backbenchers.

ScarfaceClaw wrote:If we had a referendum to build a rocket ship and relocate Hull to Alpha Centuri I'd expect people to consider it fully rather than just cracking on with it on the basis that "some people told me to".

Mahoney wrote:It's such a relief that the government want to make a success of Brexit and the opposition want it to work for Britain. I was worried for a while that government policy would be to make a failure of Brexit and the opposition wanted it not to work, but knowing they both don't actively and deliberately want to damage the country is a great relief.

zzzz wrote:

I like haggis wrote:

Mahoney wrote:Good and important judgement. It was pretty disgraceful in this day and age to suggest that the executive could unilaterally make calls like this based on a .

Sad that people lack the good sense to see the bigger picture outside their narrow partiality. This is a win for parliament, not remain. The vast probability is that the government will win the vote on triggering Article 50.

If we're going to Brexit we really ought to have a general election to elect a government on a specific mandate to implement Brexit. I think it should be a constitutional principle that in the event of the government losing a referendum of this magnitude for the future, parliament should immediately be dissolved and the people given the opportunity to elect a parliament that is explicitly prepared to implement that decision. Our constitution jut isn't set up for a referendum providing a popular mandate to do something the majority of members of parliament think is a bad idea.

Excellent post. It's a win for Parliamentary sovereignty which is what Leave voters claim they want yet they still wet the bed. People clearly have absolutely no idea what sovereignty actually is.

And if MPs block it?

I like haggis wrote: People clearly have absolutely no idea what sovereignty actually is.

Sandstorm wrote:

MorseCode wrote:

Daily Mail focusing on what's important. Everyone knows gays hate democracy.

Which one has the biggest house?

zzzz wrote:

Mahoney wrote:It's such a relief that the government want to make a success of Brexit and the opposition want it to work for Britain. I was worried for a while that government policy would be to make a failure of Brexit and the opposition wanted it not to work, but knowing they both don't actively and deliberately want to damage the country is a great relief.

So what are you expecting them to tell anyone at this stage? This whole parliamentary consultation thing is complete crap. The UK would like a free trade in goods and services without being a member of the EU. The EU would like the UK to join the EEA. A compromise between those positions will emerge in negotiations. The rest is just posturing.

The Man Without Fear wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

MorseCode wrote:

Daily Mail focusing on what's important. Everyone knows gays hate democracy.

Which one has the biggest house?

The gay, obviously. No loving wife at home needing pin money or kids needing their education paying for.

piquant wrote:

The Man Without Fear wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

MorseCode wrote:

Daily Mail focusing on what's important. Everyone knows gays hate democracy.

Which one has the biggest house?

The gay, obviously. No loving wife at home needing pin money or kids needing their education paying for.

Plenty of gay people with kids.

The Man Without Fear wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

MorseCode wrote:

Daily Mail focusing on what's important. Everyone knows gays hate democracy.

Which one has the biggest house?

The gay, obviously. No loving wife at home needing pin money or kids needing their education paying for.

Mahoney wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Mahoney wrote:It's such a relief that the government want to make a success of Brexit and the opposition want it to work for Britain. I was worried for a while that government policy would be to make a failure of Brexit and the opposition wanted it not to work, but knowing they both don't actively and deliberately want to damage the country is a great relief.

So what are you expecting them to tell anyone at this stage? This whole parliamentary consultation thing is complete crap. The UK would like a free trade in goods and services without being a member of the EU. The EU would like the UK to join the EEA. A compromise between those positions will emerge in negotiations. The rest is just posturing.

I must have missed the bit where I said I expected them to tell me anything. I'd just like them to stop mouthing meaningless stuff as if it were meaningful.

...Remainers should not mistake this for a chance to undo what has happened in the last four month. Nor should Labour MPs whose constituents have warned them about free movement see it as another chance to improve their personal position by pretending to hold May to account over an issue she is already obsessed with. Nor should Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell get lost down some meaningless rabbit hole of assurances about Article 50. Nor should David Lammy demand MPs vote down Article 50. The correct way to proceed may not even be to insist the government stay in the single market.

Instead, Labour, Liberal Democrats, the SNP and, most importantly, moderate Tory MPs should use this as a chance to secure safeguards on Brexit. It is absurd to think that they will vote against the government. They will not. It is too symbolic for parliament to set itself up so plainly against a popular vote. They must control Brexit, not seek to stop it.

These safeguards should be along the lines of the tests Gordon Brown applied to Tony Blair when he was threatening to join the euro. To what extent will this decision damage the living standards of the British public? Will it lead to job losses in manufacturing and if so how many? Will it lead to a sudden reduction in financial services’ contribution to the Treasury and if so how much? Is it likely to lead to a further fall in the value of sterling, and if so how much? Is it likely to trigger an increase in unemployment, and if so how much?

Framing the requirements in this way keeps those who are opposed to or wary of Brexit together. There is no need to argue about the single market or free movement or anything else. This is a stage before that. Satisfying these requirements is a precondition of whatever plan you follow.

But more importantly it returns a semblance of reason and empiricism to British politics. It frames the debate not in terms of who wants what, but of what the consequences are of our actions in the real world. That alone will help make our current condition less emotional and frenzied. Then when we finally return to talking about free movement and other concerns that debate has a greater chance of being framed in terms of competing goods and bads, rather than the childlike and colourful absolutes in which it has been conducted so far.

This is a rare moment of clarity. Let’s hope parliamentarians make the most of it.

I'm often confused by what time it is when the clocks change, but someone at the Mail appears to have set theirs all the way back to the 1990s.

In a now-amended headline, the Mail attacked the three judges who have ruled that Parliament, not Downing Street, must be the ones to pull the trigger on Article 50, as the “the judges that blocked Brexit: One founded a European law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer”.

It’s worth noting for a moment – and this is not the biggest problem with the headline but it speaks directly to it – that today’s judgement has not blocked anything. It has ruled that power to leave the European Union rests not with the executive but the legislature. The best that can be said about any politician or media organisation talking about the courts “blocking Brexit” is that they’re woefully misinformed – the worst is that they are actively trying to mislead.

In any case, for the crime of deciding that responsibility rests in one branch of the government over another, the three judges in question have been the subjects of a smear job on the Mail website. John Thomas, the chief presiding judge, is lambasted for having founded “a EUROPEAN law group” (emphasis the Mail’s, not mine). Thomas is a founder of the European Law Institute, which aims to integrate law across the continent where possible.

I have bad news for the Brexit crowd: even the most drastic break with the European Union is not going to mean that there isn’t a need for harmonisation of some law between Britain and the continent, unless the post-Brexit world is one in which no-one in the United Kingdom sells anything to the continent, travels to the continent, falls sick on the continent, dies continent, is the victim of a cross-border fraud, banks with an international bank, falls in love with someone from another European country or takes a job in a European country.

A Supreme Court Justice s is effectively being attacked for being good at his job, something which ought to be a breath-taking occurrence but instead feels as routine as the falling of leaves in Britain nowadays. It can only be a matter of time before someone is attacked by the Brexit boosters for having books on their shelves.

Philip Sales, meanwhile, is coming under fire for charging the taxpayer “millions”. To put it plainly, the charge against Sales is that while being an eminent legal professional, he was paid for doing his job. Again, an attack that ought to be more surprising than it is but instead is becoming as commonplace as Muzak.


But it’s the third that’s really shocking. While founding “a European law group” and being paid to turn up to work ought not to be sources of ire, they are clearly written up to be signs that the judgements of Thomas and Sales are not to be trusted. They’re not “normal” like you and me. Their judgements aren’t in the interests of honest Britons – who, of course, all voted for Brexit, unlike the 16 million Remainers, who all live in Islington anyway.

That’s the context in which the description of Terence Etherton as “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer” – now deleted from the headline but still riddled through the copy – is being used. These things are not normal, you see, which is why he’s taken the sinister decision to vest the power to leave the European Union in the hands of a group of politicians in the Houses of Parliament and not in the hands of one politician in Downing Street.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that, whatever the merits or demerits of leaving the European Union, the Brexit vote has been taken as a licence for a hard-right fringe to come scuttling out of the dark. We can see that in the spike in hate crimes that occurred immediately after the Brexit vote, and we can see that with the revival of homophobic tropes that had been increasingly marginalised in public life.

I wish that those self-described "liberal Brexiteers" with a public platform – like Douglas Carswell, today calling for the government to be given the power to remove judges it dislikes – would rail against that, rather than verdict that will merely change which part of the British government will trigger the process whereby Britain leaves the European Union.

piquant wrote:https://twitter.com/StephenMangan/statu ... 3477320704