Is it derailing to scrutinise and hold to account? This isn’t all a war game which some treat it as, the lives of every inhabitant on our isles is at stake, if that doesn’t deserve time patience debate and scrutiny, then nothing will. If the outcome is to alienate half our populace, either way, the solution was rushed and failed.
Maybe wrong choice of word. What I meant was it will be interesting to see what Corbyn, Miller and Bercow come up with now.
Easy, Miller will go about her business, as long as the prime minister doesn’t break the law... again. Corbyn will come up with incoherent rubbish, often flip flopping several times a day while trying to close down any alternate view in his party, and bercow will continue to do an outstanding job of allowing parliament to be sovereign at the most important of times.
Bercow is allowing the sovereign parliament to have a voice, something May and Johnson have both tried to defy every way possible. At a time when all and sundry scream of lack of sovereignty and democracy, it can’t be such that a speaker encouraging that is also blocking it.
Like I said nothing to hide behind now. Whatever, Boris comes forward with from the EU will be voted down, likewise whatever, Corbyn potentially puts before the house will too. I doubt Corbyn would make that much of a fist of negotiations either. He'd most likely drag his feet. The fact is the powers that be are predominantly remainers hiding behind an agenda and I'm glad this high court fiasco is out of the way and people will start to see them for what they really are. The people were wrong in 2016 and the U.K will remain. It's so obvious. I don't even know why I'm even getting worked up by it.
Yes I agree he did. My point is it doesn't matter if you have Mickey Mouse as Prime Minister. If they want to deliver Brexit they will be voted down because the majority will do whatever is in their power to stop it.
So people who shout about democracy being overruled are upset that the Courts wouldn't let a man overrule democracy Welcome to 2019
Is it not a good thing that parliament block stupid Ill conceived ideological motions, bills and legislation though? A better conceived plan would get through, but the no deal utopia of the minority’s rightly won’t.
Why didn't the MP's say in 2016 that they weren't going to accept Brexit and would try and find any means possible to ditch it? That's what they've done since on both sides. It's just hypocrisy. I aren't bothered now. What does bother me is the likes of Corbyn saying they want to achieve a deal and give us another referendum. The Eu look at that and think why are we wasting our time negotiating a deal that might be voted against anyway. Do people actually think that the deal will be there for all the public to see like the M.P's?
The country ADVISED leave. In a non legally binding referendum. To make it legally binding, legislation would have meant leave requiring a super-majority - they got nowhere near. No one campaigned for a no deal - leave lied their butts off at every turn - the only democracy worth anything is informed democracy. Several countries have laws that if the build up to the referendum is full of lies then it is void. Can anyone seriously imagine leave winning if they only told the truth? I mean really? come on. Leave not only lied, they broke the law. They are criminals. This was to be investigated until Maybot decided that criminal investigations into her own government ministers would make the Tories look bad. As if. They look bad already. The real fallout to Brexit is not even remotely what leavers said it would be. (Operation Black Swan sounds like it'll be a bed of roses) The only solution is to revoke Article 50 but not tell leave voters. We can get on with our lives and keep our freedoms all the while telling leave voters that we've left the EU - charge them for NHS services, add 40% every bill they get (and let them choose from a limited supply of Brexit foodstuffs and medicines), make them queue in special 'Freedom' queues at ports, etc and wait an extra 6 hours. They'll think they've got what they want and the rest of us can chuckle away at them. I mean, they believed all the rubbish over the last 30 years about the EU, they'll surely swallow this.
What stipulations would there have been?...there is no mechanism in law, or precedent for stipulations in UK wide referendums.
The remainers were clever with the no deal brexit bill. In effect it keeps the UK in the EU unless there is a deal. Hence they can keep voting down any deal put forward and stay in the EU. In the meantime the EU are laughing their ******** off because they keep getting their billion pound a month. They wont knock back an extension because they're making money. I've just accepted that by hook or by crook the UK will remain. It's just the underhand way it's being done that has annoyed me. Hiding behind Supreme court and Parliament bills. Why not just come out and say they're all about blocking Brexit?
If legally binding, there would have been more discussions on any stipulations - Liddington shut that debate down by saying it was advisory in Parliament. Apart from it being overturned due to irregularities (Venice Convention on elections) if it was legally-binding, it *could* have had a supermajority requirement, it *could* have had a requirement for all 4 nations to vote in favour, it *could* have had any requirements that passed Parliament. It *should* have had a specific question on the ballot paper - and the campaigns should have been on the facts of that specific question (like the AV one) - that was probably the single biggest mistake of the entire sorry mess.
You forget, the Government have had 3 chances to vote through a deal - it's Tory division that's failed to get one through.