Current Affairs

[towny44]

And yes Jack if we achieve all that then some of what we currently pay into the EU will be available to other govt depts, including the NHS.
Now as for Unicorns I think you will need to ask Nicola Sturgeon, she seems to be the one that believes in fairy tails.

"We send the EU £350 million a week. Lets fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave" was what the bus said. The £350m was a lie. The government has since said there will, in fact, not be any more money for the NHS.
My reference to unicorns was about all the other promises of the Leave campaign that have now disappeared. I made absolutely no reference to Scotland in that post, though if I were Scottish, I think I might find your comment a little offensive.

Only a little offensive, gosh I must be losing my touch.

[oldbluefox]

Offensive? You should hear what he says about Leeds United and 'them southern wusses' tha knows!!!

[Stephen]

Offensive? You should hear what he says about Leeds United and 'them southern wusses' tha knows!!!

Steady Foxy

[Silver_Shiney]

. I made absolutely no reference to Scotland in that post, though if I were Scottish, I think I might find your comment a little offensive.

As someone born in the Land of the Haggis, I thought the comment to be spot on, not in the least offensive.

[Stephen]

I rather like haggis with a nip or three myself. And besides, the jocks are too thick.....skinned to take a fence. A gate or your life maybe, but not a fence

I'm only kidding with ya all before you start getting all brave heart with me

[Silver_Shiney]

I rather like haggis with a nip or three

Oh, it's YOU!!

[Manoverboard]

" Brexit means Brexit " .

Please explain, as it is only you, Theresa May, Nissan, Renault, the French Government and the E.U. that seem to know at the moment.

I do believe that on many occasions Theresa May and most of her top cabinet team have explained their philosophy quite clearly.
They want the UK Govt. to determine who can come to the UK and work.
They want to secure the best trading deal for both the UK and the EU.
They do not want the UK to be part of the single market.
They do not want the UK to be accountable to the ECJ.
They no longer want the UK to be part of the EU.

Now I don't know how much clearer anyone needs "Brexit is Brexit" to be explained.

Being only one person out of 17 million or so who voted for Brexit I would venture to suggest ( although we would all have had a variety of reasons for voting the way we did ) that Towny's definition reflects my own reason for voting to leave, some aspects are however more important than others but overall me, Teresa, the French plus a number of car manufacturers and the EU ... plus Towny of course are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I assume that you must be a diehard Italian style ' Mona Leaver '

[Stephen]

.

[Silver_Shiney]

Being only one person out of 17 million or so who voted for Brexit I would venture to suggest ( although we would all have had a variety of reasons for voting the way we did ) that Towny's definition reflects my own reason for voting to leave, some aspects are however more important than others but overall me, Teresa, the French plus a number of car manufacturers and the EU ... plus Towny of course are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Big time ditto

[oldbluefox]

Agreed. The reasons for Brexit are very clear but, of course there are still some who don't believe it or cannot accept it.

1425_3.jpg

The judges' ruling is merely a means of delaying Article 50 and will do nothing to promote confidence in the UK.

[Mervyn and Trish]

All the people trying to delay Brexit will only make the outcome worse, which is perhaps what they want so they can say "told you so". Two points, just for starters.

• They want Theresa May to show her negotiating hand to parliament and hence the world. Will the EU's negotiators be obliged to do the same? Are the same people preparing a court case to force them to do so? No, I thought not.
  
  It has been said that Angela Merkel has stated the UK will get worse terms if it delays

[Frank Manning]

It's typical of the hysteria comiing from the rabidly brexit press that theyt accuse the judges of deliberate delay. In their rage, they miss the constitutional point. Can the PM exercise the prerogative on this alone, and the correct answer is no she cant. It has nothing to do with being anti brexit. In constitutional terms I wrlcome the ruling. We are in 21st century Britain not in 1930's Germany.

[poole boy]

in case you have forgotten the mps voted by 6 to 1 to agree for the referendem vote to go ahead so no the decision has been made it is only the few remainers who do not except the result who are scrambling to find reasons not to except it.

[Frank Manning]

That is still not the point. Can the PM make these decisions without recourse to Parliament? The law has said no. Never mind brexit; it is an important constitutional matter.

[Mervyn and Trish]

So if the Supreme Court says yes will that be okay Frank?

BTW I was not accusing the judges of delay. I was accusing the handful of people who brought the case

[towny44]

That is still not the point. Can the PM make these decisions without recourse to Parliament? The law has said no. Never mind brexit; it is an important constitutional matter.

Billhooks!

[Kendhni]

There has to be a certain irony where the court has not 'voted' the correct way therefore there is a demand for another 'vote' - reminds me of something else

[Frank Manning]

That is still not the point. Can the PM make these decisions without recourse to Parliament? The law has said no. Never mind brexit; it is an important constitutional matter.

Billhooks!

I am not in the habit of dismissing other peoples opinions in quite such a crude way. But hey, perhaps now my disillusionment with this forum is complete.

[Jack Staff]

I am not in the habit of dismissing other peoples opinions in quite such a crude way. But hey, perhaps now my disillusionment with this forum is complete.

Don't worry Frank, they are just upset because even they can see their great Brexit Dream beginning to fall apart.

[towny44]

That is still not the point. Can the PM make these decisions without recourse to Parliament? The law has said no. Never mind brexit; it is an important constitutional matter.

Billhooks!

I am not in the habit of dismissing other peoples opinions in quite such a crude way. But hey, perhaps now my disillusionment with this forum is complete.

Frank my comment was in regard to the one sided nature of your understanding of the rather loose and lax British constitution.
From my reading of the situation there is no one specific answer to your question, simply because there is no precedent and therefore every opinion will be subjective, even those of the learned judges, and because of the divisive reaction to the referendum it is no surprise that it produces such differing opinions.
I undersand why the Guardian should be firmly of the opinion that this is in direct breach of their understanding of the constitution, but there are equally valid views which are the direct opposite.
So we will agree to disagree but please stop trying to portray the remain camp as the last bastion of genuine concern for the future of the UK.

[barney]

My understanding is that IF our Supreme Court over rules our High court, then the protagonists intend to take the case to the European Court of Justice

Now, that would be interesting.

Not trying to stop Brexit?
Just a simple point of law?
We'll see then won't we.

[david63]

My understanding is that IF our Supreme Court over rules our High court, then the protagonists intend to take the case to the European Court of Justice

Now, that would be interesting.

Not trying to stop Brexit?
Just a simple point of law?
We'll see then won't we.

I thought I had heard/read somewhere that this case cannot be taken to ECJ as it is an "internal" matter and therefore the ECJ has no jurisdiction - but that may well be incorrect.

[barney]

You may well be correct David, I'm only quoting what I read.

I'm certainly no expert.

[towny44]

You may well be correct David, I'm only quoting what I read.

I'm certainly no expert.

However you are prepared to admit to not being an expert, maybe some of our judges should practise being a bit more humble as well.

[oldbluefox]

As I see it the judges did nothing wrong apart from come to a decision on a point of law. Their impartiality is a matter for conjecture but we have to trust their professionalism. Hmmmm!
However there is a definite attempt to delay invoking Article 50 by various factions within parliament, along with the likes of Mrs Krankie plus economists and industrialists who will do all they can to scupper the Brexit vote.
Gina Miller described herself on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday as just an 'ordinary woman'. How many 'ordinary women' do you know in your neck of the woods who would have the money or the know how to take the government to the High Court on a matter of constitutional principle? Pull the other one Ms Miller!!!

Hopefully Teresa May will stick to her guns, invoke Article 50 and start negotiations, She will then, and only then, be able to report back to parliament what has been discussed and what has been achieved. The rest of it is merely delaying and spoiling tactics.