Meanwhile...... at the High Court....

So simply put, if they, the plaintiffs? win does that mean we have no change of negotiating Brexit whilst playing our cards close to our chest? On the basis of what you said, to proceed with Brexit if we had to debate/vote on our conditions would be suicidal for the UK and remove any hope of a satisfactory (from the UK perspective) exit deal.

Perhaps we could have a nice little earner in selling wine vinegar given the amount of 'sour grapes' that there seem to be in the UK at present.

This was one element of Brexit I have to admit I had not factored in.

 

The debate that is vexing a lot of people (beyond the constitutional) is having voted to leave do people want a soft or a hard Brexit. Whilst there is some validity to the argument that we need a strong negotiating hand and can not have this discussion before the event, that also misses the point that once Article 50 is triggered there's no turning back on Brexit regardless of what those negotiations result in (as it stands).

The position we've arrived at is the interpretation being applied to the referendum result is that it is out of Europe at all costs. This absolute position is based on a 2% majority secured by a Vote Leave campaign which argued we would get a very favourable exit deal from the EU. So if we don't get a favourable position surely it is a fair question as to whether people still believe we should leave?

The problem is those that brought about the referendum didn't think through any of this in designing it, or stick around to resolve these issues. And I'm not sure it can be resolved now.

But I think it is unfair to criticise those asking these questions, or accusing them of sour grapes.

 

Yes - but throwing the country in to turmoil and risking the very future of the country on a point of order, albeit a valid and important one is rather like shooting oneself in the foot to prove the gun can still fire. Agree that it wasn't thought through but not certain it can be proved the 52% assumed we would get a favourable deal as many people on the Brexit side seem to favour a clean break (certainly not given by the comments when BBC etc state we may have to pay to retain access to the single market nor those (like me) who believe that the EU will fail sooner rather than later i.e. damage limitation).

Still we are getting off topic and going over old ground.

Those now raising this valid constitutional point should have done so BEFORE the referendum and not after the die was cast. WHAT A MESS"

 

Why can't the 'Remainers' move on and accept the outcome of the referendum?

 

(In)vested interests. Don't seem to be bothered how much uncertainty and damage they cause. If they genuinely believe Brexit will do massive damage to the economy then they should realize how much more damage still is caused by the uncertainty and problems their actions are causing. I am referring of course to those who have taken the Govt to Court and not the remain voters in general. Most will have had the good grace to abide by the result it is the minority causing the problem. They may well be right legally and constitutionally but the damage they will cause is not. Hardly surprising with the negative bias from the BBC which has been a disgrace since the vote.

 

The point about that is that before the vote to leave, there was no constitutional point to make. That's why we're in this mess. The EU never contemplated that Article 50 would ever be used, and Cameron never contemplated that there would be a leave vote. Hence the lack of provision by either the EU or the UK for what happens next!

As for 'showing our hand' - the power to negotiate the terms of departure and the right to trigger the same could still be delegated to the minister by Parliament, which would then empower him to do his best. That would satisfy the constittuional proprieties. But there may well be MP's who would just like to thwart the whole process!

 

Because they love their country. [They would say!]

 

there must be a lot of older uneducated people in the parts of the country where 70 odd percent voted to leave.

if you believe that clap trap you'll believe owt,just because the young educated,cosmopolitan backbone of this country voted to remain,doesnt mean the older thicker leave voters hadnt a clue what they are voting for.

maybe these young educated remainers have been fcukin brainwashed by the state,seeing it is this that sets the tone for most of the education in this country.

 

Still the most mental statement of the campaign was Michael Gove's "we're tired of listening to experts".

I still think it's nuts that an irreversible decision of this magnitude has to be made without knowing what the actual agreed outcome is though. Especially when it comes down to such a small margin.

 

ark,most that voted leave wernt bothered one jot what the 'deal' is,they just wanted out,its as simple as that.

 

Just to clarify I'm not arguing we should ignore the outcome of the referendum. I'm just pointing out that having voted out the question of a hard or soft Brexit is a very real and valid one.

There seems to be an attitude that you are only allowed an opinion on what Brexit should look like if you voted for it. Which is ridiculous.

 

No offence And not directed at you in any way but that's the uneducated bit.

I think we should get on with leaving the EU myself.

But anyone who moans about rising food prices or falling living standards or even about not being able to go on holiday needs to get a grip. Life will be **** at (least in the short term) and we need to regain our traditional stoic Britishness and if we wake up in a few years time and realise it was probably bankers who squeezed living standards and knackered the British and world economy not Bobic the Builder then we have to accept that.

On the wider constitutional issue I don't understand why anyone would want to prevent MPs voting on such an important issue. It's what we pay em for. It just part of the reason for leaving the EU was so our elected representatives could regain their last division making powers.

 

Voting to leave was no more a leap into the dark than voting to remain.

The E U is not a 'fixed' entity - it's a democratic organisation and the members reflect the changing voting patterns of each country.
There is a rise in nationalism in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary. So what we will see is a more right wing E U developing over the years and that will have a major influence on EU laws and had we remained in the EU ,a major influence on our laws.
Once we are out we will have more control over our own destiny - not a bad thing!

 

What specific laws are you unhappy with that you feel were imposed by Europe and you wish to change?

 

I can't disagree with what you say about Gove , but I'm sure he was aware that many of the disaster claims were outrageous , as has been indicated by the OECD , and the IMF recently revising their outlooks , to be not only far less damaging , but in parts quite positive (in the long term )than those they used at the time . Mark Carney has also defended his statements suggesting disaster , by saying he would have been negligent not to have presented a worst case scenario . Whilst I agree it would have been negligent not to warn of the worst possible effects , a balanced view might have been better all round , I feel pretty certain he presented only the worst case at Cameron's behest .

 

Given that we are looking at a Tory government or Tory-led coalition for the foreseeable future, I'd much rather trust a bunch of elected MEPs from across Europe than our own government

 

We are the grown ups, we actually realise that this is a bad thing, a proper bad thing.

Just cos you kids have decided that you are going to get a tattoo/stupid haircut/chop off bits of your body - does not mean we have to agree with it and stop you doing it.

 

What control do you imagine you will have over Parliament that you did not have before?

 

We are still in the EU, those claims were for exit from the EU.