Planet Rugby Forum

La soule wrote:So soft BREXIT with adherence to the four pillar back on the table?

Yep. but I expect we will want migration curbs and there will be some economic pain to achieve that.

At least there can now be a grown up debate. Hopefully!

Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

Chuckles1188 wrote:Good analysis here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11 ... ober-again

...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.

Ah sure there's always a chance, and hopefully they'll manage to pull it off and stop these bastàrds.

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

We will pay less , and we will have migration curbs.

theo wrote:

La soule wrote:So soft BREXIT with adherence to the four pillar back on the table?

Yep. but I expect we will want migration curbs and there will be some economic pain to achieve that.

At least there can now be a grown up debate. Hopefully!

I wouldn't count on it

Kinda like the point Johnathan Freedland makes in the Gaurdian.

Jonathan Freedland:

Surely those who should be cheering today’s high court judgment the loudest are the people who have been the most passionate defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So rejoice, Daniel Hannan: the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Put out the bunting, Michael Gove: your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval. All those who spent the spring trumpeting the glory of England, hailing it as the mother of parliaments, can now celebrate their victory.

Except, of course, they won’t. Those who campaigned for leave in the name of wresting power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50? Suddenly they found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central – that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

Full article here..https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... parliament

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

. Time for a Nigel comeback.

unseenwork wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Good analysis here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11 ... ober-again

...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.

Ah sure there's always a chance, and hopefully they'll manage to pull it off and stop these bastàrds.

Jeez, you've got your panties twisted .....

bimboman wrote:

unseenwork wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Good analysis here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11 ... ober-again

...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.

Ah sure there's always a chance, and hopefully they'll manage to pull it off and stop these bastàrds.

Jeez, you've got your panties twisted .....

Just rather concerned about the future of Northern Ireland.

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

Huh? I think you are jumping the gun with this one. The government is going to the supreme court to appeal and even if they lose again, they'll waste time in parliament but eventually the parliament will most likely vote to leave (doing anything other than this is going to start a civil war).

I am quite happy for UK to stay in the EEA but it's quite clear that's not what the government wants and an overwhelming majority of the people in the UK (including remainers) want net migration numbers reduced. So there's pretty much chance of a deal that includes free movement of people unless it's between European countries with similar living standards which of course is not going to happen.

bimboman wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

We will pay less , and we will have migration curbs.

Maybe but I am not sure you will get that.

That would cost a lot though.

What has been a lost a bit is yet another example of Theresa May's incompetence. She's been stopping acting tyrannically (which some people who love democracy are angry about ) and she'll lose the appeal.

A good way to invoke article 50: (1) at Tory conference 'guys, we're drafting a bill that will give effect to the Referendum and invoke article 50' (2) have a vote of the bill (3a) it passes or (3b) call a general election to rid herself of the MPs that said no.

But no, she decides to try and use a power she doesn't have, divides the country even further and embarrasses herself.

TranceNRG wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

Huh? I think you are jumping the gun with this one. The government is going to the supreme court to appeal and even if they lose again, they'll waste time in parliament but eventually the parliament will most likely vote to leave (doing anything other than this is going to start a civil war).

I am quite happy for UK to stay in the EEA but it's quite clear that's not what the government wants and an overwhelming majority of the people in the UK (including remainers) want net migration numbers reduced. So there's pretty much chance of a deal that includes free movement of people unless it's between European countries with similar living standards which of course is not going to happen.

I am curious, based on the judgement and Government's legal position: why do you think the appeal will go differently? Bonus points for explaining (as the government failed to) why stretching prerogative powers this way is a good think for UK democracy?

Yeah acting on the the result of the referendum is tyrannical and incompetent. I don't need to remind you about her very high approval ratings. So clearly the general public disagree with you.

TranceNRG wrote: Yeah acting on the the result of the referendum is tyrannical and incompetent. I don't need to remind you about her very high approval ratings. So clearly the general public disagree with you.

Not surprised you do not understand British constitution.

haunch wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

. Time for a Nigel comeback.

What a banana kingdom

Think this may have shifted a bit today.

TranceNRG wrote: Yeah acting on the the result of the referendum is tyrannical and incompetent. I don't need to remind you about her very high approval ratings. So clearly the general public disagree with you.

The general public also have no idea what royal prerogative and parliamentary sovereignty is either apparently so I'm happy to disagree with them here.

I like haggis wrote:The High Court didn't even listen to the claimants argument, they didn't need to because the Government's case was so bad. I recommend that people read the judgement especially paragraphs 92-96 as they appear to be the key part of the judgement and explain pretty clearly why prerogative powers cannot be used in a case like this. Also worth remembering the Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice decided this case, they are essentially Supreme Court judges in waiting - not some run of the mill High Court recorder.

It's much ado about nothing really, the Brexiteers should be happy that UK Parliament is sovereign and that the power is with UK courts, I don't understand why they aren't, this isn't going to stop Brexit it's just going to make it more democratic.

Quite a funny tweet on the matter (potentially NSFW): https://twitter.com/liammakesmusic/stat ... 4375000065

Well you are free to pre-empt the Supreme Court judgment, but personally I have seen enough erroneous predictions on this thread so I won't be joining you in an attempt to second-guess them.

village wrote:Its the right decision. If May plays the election correctly she should have the majority to carry the vote and leave the remainers nothing to complain about. It will be a horribly ugly GE campaign though and yes, I imagine a fair amount of tactical voting could see the Lib Dems make a parliamentary comeback.

It would be a weird one, particularly for Labour.

Is there any chance that this is what they told Nissan? And why they wont release the letter they sent them?

"Don't worry lads, we're probably going to lose this legal challenge, and then we'll call an election and kick this can down the road as long as we can"

mikejobes wrote:Kinda like the point Johnathan Freedland makes in the Gaurdian.

Jonathan Freedland:

Surely those who should be cheering today’s high court judgment the loudest are the people who have been the most passionate defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So rejoice, Daniel Hannan: the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Put out the bunting, Michael Gove: your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval. All those who spent the spring trumpeting the glory of England, hailing it as the mother of parliaments, can now celebrate their victory.

Except, of course, they won’t. Those who campaigned for leave in the name of wresting power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50? Suddenly they found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central – that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

Full article here..https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... parliament

TranceNRG wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

Huh? I think you are jumping the gun with this one. The government is going to the supreme court to appeal and even if they lose again, they'll waste time in parliament but eventually the parliament will most likely vote to leave (doing anything other than this is going to start a civil war).

I am quite happy for UK to stay in the EEA but it's quite clear that's not what the government wants and an overwhelming majority of the people in the UK (including remainers) want net migration numbers reduced. So there's pretty much chance of a deal that includes free movement of people unless it's between European countries with similar living standards which of course is not going to happen.

Nope. sorry.

Plus of course more migrants come from outside the EU then from within it and we already have powers to curb those numbers. But we don't. I wonder why.

sturginho wrote:

theo wrote:

La soule wrote:So soft BREXIT with adherence to the four pillar back on the table?

Yep. but I expect we will want migration curbs and there will be some economic pain to achieve that.

At least there can now be a grown up debate. Hopefully!

I wouldn't count on it

SO UKIP's job is not done.

theo wrote:

TranceNRG wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

Huh? I think you are jumping the gun with this one. The government is going to the supreme court to appeal and even if they lose again, they'll waste time in parliament but eventually the parliament will most likely vote to leave (doing anything other than this is going to start a civil war).

I am quite happy for UK to stay in the EEA but it's quite clear that's not what the government wants and an overwhelming majority of the people in the UK (including remainers) want net migration numbers reduced. So there's pretty much chance of a deal that includes free movement of people unless it's between European countries with similar living standards which of course is not going to happen.

Nope. sorry.

Plus of course more migrants come from outside the EU then from within it and we already have powers to curb those numbers. But we don't. I wonder why.

Theo, I believe this has been discussed plenty of times before. The EU and non EU migration numbers are pretty similar. Conservative government made it a lot harder for people to come and live in the UK if they are not from the EU. If the Labour system was still in place, the numbers would be a lot higher without a doubt. Of course there are more ways the government can reduce the non EU numbers further and I think they are looking at tightening the rules but the left always cries when this happens.

As for majority wanting immigration numbers reduced, I've seen a number of polls this year which had high numbers supporting reductions (from memory it was 60-70%).

Rugby2023 wrote:

I like haggis wrote:The High Court didn't even listen to the claimants argument, they didn't need to because the Government's case was so bad. I recommend that people read the judgement especially paragraphs 92-96 as they appear to be the key part of the judgement and explain pretty clearly why prerogative powers cannot be used in a case like this. Also worth remembering the Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice decided this case, they are essentially Supreme Court judges in waiting - not some run of the mill High Court recorder.

It's much ado about nothing really, the Brexiteers should be happy that UK Parliament is sovereign and that the power is with UK courts, I don't understand why they aren't, this isn't going to stop Brexit it's just going to make it more democratic.

Quite a funny tweet on the matter (potentially NSFW): https://twitter.com/liammakesmusic/stat ... 4375000065

Well you are free to pre-empt the Supreme Court judgment, but personally I have seen enough erroneous predictions on this thread so I won't be joining you in an attempt to second-guess them.

1- The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.

2- It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: under the UK constitution, it is one for the court to decide [5]. It turns on the extent of the Crown’s powers under its prerogative [explained at 24-29]. The Government accepts that neither the European Union Referendum Act 2015 nor any other Act of Parliament confers on it statutory authority (as distinct from the Crown’s prerogative power) to give notice under Article 50[67-72, 76 and 105-108].

3 - On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined what were then the European Communities, including the European Economic Community. Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972 (1972 Act) to allow that to happen since it was a condition of membership that Community law should be given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom and primary legislation was required to achieve this [1 and 36-54]. The European Communities have now become the European Union.

4 - Pursuant to the European Union Referendum Act 2015 a referendum was held on 23 June 2016 on the question whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. The answer given was that the UK should leave [2].

5- The process for withdrawal is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that once a Member State gives notice to withdraw there is a two-year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is reached in this time then, subject only to agreement on an extension of time with the European Council acting unanimously, the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to that State. The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given. It also accepts that Article 50 does not allow a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by stating that Parliament is required to approve any withdrawal agreement made in the course of Article 50 negotiations [9-17].

6 - Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law as incorporated into domestic law by the 1972 Act would inevitably be lost once the Article 50 withdrawal process is completed [57-66].

7 - The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation [18-36].

8 - In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect [76-80].

9 - The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not [76-81].

10 - The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers [82-94, 97-104]. The Court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants [95-96].

11 - For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.

The 10 MPs who have the most difficult decision about which way to vote for Brexit (according to the Independent):

1. Byron Davies, Gower

The Conservative MP for Gower won his seat by the thinnest of margins - 0.06 per cent of the vote (69.17 per cent turnout).
His region voted 51.51 per cent for Leave, and 48.49 per cent for Remain (69.6 per cent turnout).
Davies stated his intention to campaign for Remain in the run-up to the referendum and spoke in parliament in October about the difference EU funding has made in his constituency:

All in all, EU structural funds and the common agricultural policy deliver well over half a billion pounds a year, in addition to money from other key funding areas such as higher education, culture and urban development. Working with Government, charities and businesses, the investment has made an enormous difference.

2. Chris Matheson, City of Chester

The Labour MP declared his intention to vote Remain in the run up to the referendum, bucking the trend of the area for his City of Chester constituents, who voted Leave by 50.68 per cent to 49.32:
I am clear that Chester and the UK need to stay in the EU. For all the current problems, leaving would be catastrophic.
He implored constituents to join the Chester IN campaign.
He won his seat in the General Election by a majority of only 0.18 per cent with a turnout six per cent lower than for his area in the European Union referendum.

3. Albert Owen, Ynys Mon

The Labour MP for Ynys Môn won his seat with a narrow majority of 0.66 per cent (69.94 per cent turnout).
The constituency voted to leave the EU by 50.94 per cent to 49.06 (73.82 per cent turnout), while Owen said he would campaign for Remain.

4. James Davies, Vale of Clwyd

The Welsh Conservative leader and MP for Vale of Clwyd was elected by a 0.67 per cent majority with a turnout of 62.4 per cent.
The Conservative MP's constituents were far more engaged with the EU referendum, voting Leave by 54 to 46 per cent with a turnout of 69.14 per cent.
Davies campaigned for the UK to leave the European Union and in a statement following the result he wrote:

The EU referendum presented us with a binary choice which was one of the most difficult decisions that many of us have ever faced. But at the local referendum count in Denbigh last night it was evident that, as expected, voters in this area had chosen quite decisively to leave the EU.

Even so, I am acutely aware that some 40 per cent locally (North Denbighshire) will not currently be convinced that the decision was the right one. I am clear that the result of the referendum can be good for all of us but ensuring that is the case will require strong and sensible leadership at the top and the involvement of those from and across all political parties. We need an approach which is not “little Englander” but which seeks to replace the UK’s current position within an inward-looking European Union with an outward-looking position embracing not only Europe but the whole of the rest of the world.

5. Andrea Jenkyns, Morley and Outwood

The Conservative MP for Morley and Outwood won her seat by a 0.87 per cent majority with a turnout of 63.64 per cent, while the area for her constituency voted to Remain in the EU, by 50.31 per cent to 49.69 (71.39 per cent turnout).

Jenkyns, meanwhile, campaigned to leave the European Union. Her constituents may well be keeping a close eye on which way she votes.

6. David Nuttall, Bury North

The Conservative MP campaigned to Leave the European Union, in line with the wishes of his constituents, it turns out.
54.12 per cent of them voted to leave (71.43 per cent turnout).
Mr Nuttall was voted in as MP for Bury North with a hairline majority of 0.84 per cent (66.93 per cent turnout).

7. David Mundell, Dumfriesshire and Clydesdale

The Secretary of State for Scotland campaigned for Remain, in line with his constituency's voting, 53.06 per cent for Remain with a 71.41 per cent turnout.
However, 46.94 per cent of them voted to Leave, one of the closest races in Scotland, which overall voted Remain to the tune of 62 per cent.
Mundell was voted in with a majority of 1.53 per cent in the 2015 General Election, and an extraordinarily high turnout of 76.13 per cent.

8. Graham Evans, Weaver Vale

The Conservative MP for Weaver Vale campaigned for Remain, but the referendum area for his constituency of Weaver Vale voted Leave (50.68 per cent, 74.51 per cent turnout).
Turnout was far higher in the EU referendum than for the General Election (68.51) where he was voted in with a majority of 1.72 per cent.

9. John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness

The Labour MP for Barrow and Furness campaigned for Remain, and his constituency's area voted 52.86 in favour of this result (79.78 per cent turnout).
He won his seat in the General election with only a 1.72 per cent majority (63.32 per cent).

10. Maria Caulfield, Lewes

Conservative MP Maria Caulfield is an interesting case as her constituency of Lewes, who voted her in with a 2.14 per cent majority (72.74 per cent turnout) bridges two EU referendum voting wards.
Lewes voted Remain, 52.07 per cent to 47.93 (77.89 per cent turnout), while Wealden voted Leave, 54.5 per cent to 45.5 (80.03 per cent turnout).
Maria Caulfield campaigned for Leave, while the larger geographic half of her constituency voted for Remain.

David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

Rugby2023 wrote:

village wrote:Its the right decision. If May plays the election correctly she should have the majority to carry the vote and leave the remainers nothing to complain about. It will be a horribly ugly GE campaign though and yes, I imagine a fair amount of tactical voting could see the Lib Dems make a parliamentary comeback.

It would be a weird one, particularly for Labour.

I'm curious, what in the judgements do you think the court got wrong?

Rugby2023 wrote:

village wrote:Its the right decision. If May plays the election correctly she should have the majority to carry the vote and leave the remainers nothing to complain about. It will be a horribly ugly GE campaign though and yes, I imagine a fair amount of tactical voting could see the Lib Dems make a parliamentary comeback.

It would be a weird one, particularly for Labour.

It will not go well if their shambolic response to the High Court's decision is anything to go by

TranceNRG wrote:

theo wrote:

TranceNRG wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:Common sense prevails. Free movement to continue, Tariff free trade, UK to pay even more into the EU to get access to free market. What's not to like!!!!

Can somebody check on Trance?

Huh? I think you are jumping the gun with this one. The government is going to the supreme court to appeal and even if they lose again, they'll waste time in parliament but eventually the parliament will most likely vote to leave (doing anything other than this is going to start a civil war).

I am quite happy for UK to stay in the EEA but it's quite clear that's not what the government wants and an overwhelming majority of the people in the UK (including remainers) want net migration numbers reduced. So there's pretty much chance of a deal that includes free movement of people unless it's between European countries with similar living standards which of course is not going to happen.

Nope. sorry.

Plus of course more migrants come from outside the EU then from within it and we already have powers to curb those numbers. But we don't. I wonder why.

Theo, I believe this has been discussed plenty of times before. The EU and non EU migration numbers are pretty similar. Conservative government made it a lot harder for people to come and live in the UK if they are not from the EU. If the Labour system was still in place, the numbers would be a lot higher without a doubt. Of course there are more ways the government can reduce the non EU numbers further and I think they are looking at tightening the rules but the left always cries when this happens.

As for majority wanting immigration numbers reduced, I've seen a number of polls this year which had high numbers supporting reductions (from memory it was 60-70%).

Non EU Migration to the UK has remained pretty constant around c 300,000 people since 2000, with some peaks and troughs. There is no significant reduction since 2010.

As for a poll saying people support a cut in migrants, that might be the case, but at what cost? You can't do it in a vacuum.

piquant wrote:David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

Yep, he should start campaigning to change the constitution to make referendum results binding. Would have to be a scummer to vote against the will of the people though. No shortage of them.

haunch wrote:

piquant wrote:David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

Yep, he should start campaigning to change the constitution to make referendum results binding. Would have to be a scummer to vote against the will of the people though. No shortage of them.

Bugger the people!

So, what is the ideal figure for migration into the UK?

Anyone got a figure?

haunch wrote:

piquant wrote:David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

Yep, he should start campaigning to change the constitution to make referendum results binding. Would have to be a scummer to vote against the will of the people though. No shortage of them.

2% of the vote.

Mick Mannock wrote:So, what is the ideal figure for migration into the UK?

Anyone got a figure?

Just the ones that are eligible to play rugby for Scotland.

bimboman wrote:

haunch wrote:

piquant wrote:David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

Yep, he should start campaigning to change the constitution to make referendum results binding. Would have to be a scummer to vote against the will of the people though. No shortage of them.

2% of the vote.

That's how it works here isn't it? Quite a few of them owe their seats to getting an extra 2% of the vote.

Mick Mannock wrote:So, what is the ideal figure for migration into the UK?

Anyone got a figure?

Depend on how cheap you want cabs to be ......

haunch wrote:

piquant wrote:David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

Yep, he should start campaigning to change the constitution to make referendum results binding. Would have to be a scummer to vote against the will of the people though. No shortage of them.

No he really shouldn't.

piquant wrote:David Davis says the government is appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.

There's no way that's going to fly when the referendum was advisory, so they'll have to do better than that.

No they're not, that's the whole point.