Article 50

Sutent · January 2017

Maybe we should build a wall

HolbornFox · January 2017

i just thought it was strange that Wurzel was not shouting about it from the rooftops if it is her plan to end it. Immigration suits the G4S's of this world anyway as it reduces labour costs. i am still not convinced we will leave.

trainspotter · January 2017

David Lammy was outspoken against Article 50 in the early days as well, should we end up transferring to his constituency. I don't really think that's anything more than symbolic, but we really need Parliament to build a proper resistance to this madness of leaving the single market etc, even if full EU membership is gone.

grenners · January 2017

No need to build a wall as we already have a moat!

vetski · January 2017

I can't for the life of me remember where I saw this in late June, but SG Ward was 88% Remain, IIRC.

miss annie · January 2017

@krappyrubsnif A couple in Crouch End were interviewed in last week's Standard about their very positive experience of giving a room to a refugee. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/refugee-charity-homes-for-syrians-calls-on-londoners-to-open-their-doors-to-those-in-need-a3445781.html

krappyrubsnif · January 2017

Oooh thanks @miss annie

grenners · January 2017

@ Arkady
"I'm fixed on Sovereignty and making our own decisions in Westminster however flawed that may be I think it is better."

But what do you mean by sovereignty? Two of the oldest and most successful constitutions in the world are federal or confederal, in that they formally divide sovereignty between different levels of government. One of those two is Switzerland, which proves that democracy can work across different ethno-linguisitic groups.

GOOD FOR THEM. I THINK WE WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF IT OURSELVES AND WE COULD DO MORE LIKE THAT. THE FURTHER WE MOVE DECISIONS AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE THE WORSE IT GETS. PEOPLE POWER!

The idea that transnational sovereign democracy as found in the EU is somehow inherently illegitimate is demonstrable nonsense. Worse, it's a nationalist argument. Nationalism is inherently wrong - all the assumptions that it is based on are wrong and the consequences of nationalism would be bad even if those assumptions were correct.

You're being a nationalist. You're being wrong.

DISAGREE. THE CONVERSE MEANS THAT SOME PEOPLE IN SOCIETY ARE OVERLOOKED. NATIONALISM BROKE THE EMPIRES RULING THEM THOUGH OUT HISTORY. BRING ON SELF DETERMINATION. NATIONALISM COMES FROM PEOPLE STICKING UP FOR THEMSELVES.

"This thread started off with the suggestion of writing to our MP to fetter the serving of Article 50. If you are happy with Brussels maybe you want to write to your MEP on the various issues of Europe. I couldn't do that despite voting in the last European elections. I can't do that as I would have to look up who our MEP is."

Heaven forfend that, finding yourself ignorant of the name of your elected representative, you should have to spend 5 second googling them. Anyway, are you under the impression that most people in the UK know the names of the MP, or their councillors? Because they don't. Maybe we should scrap all democratic levels of government then?

YOU KNOW WHAT POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. PEOPLE DON'T ENGAGE WITH EUROPE. IT'S THEREFORE MORE REMOTE AND UNACCOUNTABLE. PEOPLE ARE NOT INVOLVED AND SO HAVE TO GOOGLE THEIR MEP. MOST PEOPLE KNOW WHO THEIR MP IS. HARDLY ANYONE TURNS OUT TO VOTE IN EUROPEAN ELECTIONS. MOST PEOPLE ONLY BOTHER AS THE BALLOT DAY IS THE SAME AS LOCAL ELECTIONS AND THEY THINK THEY MAY AS WELL TICK A BOX.

"I also wouldn't know what they were currently debating in Europe that week without some research as our bews rarely report it."

Heaven forfend that, as part of your duty as a citizen, you should try not to be ignorant.

" Maybe you know?"

Yes, I read a decent source of news. What's your excuse?

IT'S NOT COVERED IN THE SAME WAY AS WESTMINSTER. SAME POINT. REMOTE AND UNACCOUNTABLE. I'M NOT CONVINCED YOU ARE READING THE WHOLE STORY.

"Either way the European parliament is a joke made up of the variou"s Farage types of Europe, a kind of second rate politician even more unaccountable and out of touch than our own."

Prove that the European parliament has weaker politicians than any other democratic institution. You won't be able to. Just because we have been in the habit of sending our cast-offs in recent years doesn't mean that the rest of the Union does - some of the greatest politicans of their generation sit in the European Parliament, including several ex-heads of government.

I'M SURPRISED YOU SUPPORT MARINE LE PEN. MOST OF EUROPE VOTES LIKE WE DO AND SENDS ALL SORTS OF FRUITCAKES.

"If you don't believe in Sovereignty and the current arrangement of borders then of course we will agree to disagree."

And there's your error. You think that sovereignty can only mean some 19th century idea of the nation state. You're wrong.

NO I'M HAPPY WITH YOUR IDEA OF FEDERALISM IN THE UK. AGREE MORE POWERS COULD BE SPREAD AROUND THE UK.

"Why are you happy to move our law making powers away from those who we know are not perfect and we know are not operating in a perfectly fair system but we can influence them to a compete load of unknowns some of who may have never even stepped foot on UK soil?"

They may be unknown to you, but that's your problem. And in what sense are they more 'unknown' than any other politician? Because they're foreign, right? And you judge them on that, rather than their ideas, right? Dreadful.

OFFENSIVE. I JUDGE THEM ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED MORE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THEIR IDEAS MUST BE SHIT. THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE. THEY CAN SPEND MORE TIME SERVING THE CORPORATIONS WHICH LOBBY THEM. THE PERIPHERAL PEOPLE WILL LOSE OUT AND THE VARIOUS METROPOLITAN CENTRES WILL WIN. I'M FOR THE SMALL MAN. WE NEED LESS POLITICANS. LESS LAYERS.

I'm a Bromsgrovian. I'm a Worcesterman. I'm a Midlander. I'm a Londoner. I'm an Englishman. I'm a Brit. I'm a European. And above all, I'm a humanist. And there should be democratic governance institutions at each of those levels, making decisions appropriate to those levels. The idea that some of those institutions might contain people of a different identity to me concerns me not at all - diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Only a nationalist would differ.

I'M ALL OF THOSE TIERS TOO. BUT I DON'T RECOGNISE A EUROPEAN COURT OF LAW WE CAN HAVE OUT OWN LAWS AND LOOK AFTER OURSELVES WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A SUPERSTATE. DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH IF WE WORK TOGETHER AND WE ARE ALL HEARD.

We've already tried governing the globe on the basis of competing nation states without transnational institutions. That period ended in 1945. Arguments like yours were meant to have stopped then. Don't be surprised that people who understand that are still resisting people like you who so evidently don't.

TRY TELLING THAT TO RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA. THEY ARE OUT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT AND FAIR PLAY TO THEM. IT IS A COMPETITION OUT THERE. TRANSNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NECESSARY BUT NOT A SUPERSTATE. DON'T BE SURPRISED!? IT'S STROUD GREEN I KNEW I WAS IN FOR A BEATING BUT HAD TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ARTICLE 50.

HolbornFox · January 2017

The Riddler will be along in a minute to keep up the two minutes hate although his insults will not be as subtle.

grenners · January 2017

Ha! I'm a dead man. My days are numbered. I have different views to the masses. Shoot me.

Arkady · January 2017

"Nationalism is people sticking up for themselves" "I'm surprised you support Marine Le Pen" *sigh*

grenners · January 2017

....sigh....

fabruce · January 2017

Capital letters are far from being democratic. What is the point you are trying to make by "shouting" here?

grenners · January 2017

Fabruce the capitals are to assist in distinguishing my text from that of my sparring partner. No shouting just fighting.

fabruce · January 2017

Fighting...what a strong word on a local forum. Anyway...It is all rather sad. the situation in which we find ourselves after this divisive campaign is far from ideal, and the country will suffer from being divided. That is for sure I really hoped that nationalism and these concepts were a thing of the distant past. But it is quite evident that many people are still valuing their homeland dearly. One thing cannot be ignored and is the fact that people who will lose from this, aka remainers who value being part of Europe, will be deprived of something incredibly important and fundamental for them. This is not going to go down well. Moreover in 10-15 years, when the new generations will have brought more voters to the counters, the results will be completely different. So there might be another reversal. Maybe even 3-5 years would make a big difference. So I really see a second referendum coming really soon. Whether people will like it or not. This referendum was a re-run of the 1975 one, where a Real majority voted to change things. Not a very tiny majority. Unfortunately people who want to remain will not give up their rights so easily.

Ali · January 2017

Latest from our MP I warmly welcome today’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down by Lord Neuberger, which states that Parliament must have a vote on invoking Article 50. Parliament must be sovereign, and therefore have the right to scrutinise and vote on the proposals brought forward by the Government. The Government should now publish a white paper outlining the Government’s priorities for Brexit. In Theresa May’s speech in early January, she has made it clear that she was seeking a ‘hard Brexit’, indicating that the UK is likely to leave the Customs Union and that the UK will certainly leave the Single Market, breaking her own party’s 2015 manifesto pledge: Theresa May has stated that her plan for Brexit will deliver a “better deal for ordinary working people”. Yet we have seen the pound fall to its lowest level in over thirty years against the dollar; major companies including JP Morgan, HSBC and UBS have already announced thousands of jobs will be relocated to Paris and Frankfurt; the Chancellor himself has admitted that Government finances will be at least £122 billion worse off in the next three years and inflation is set to rise. Hard Brexit is a huge threat to both workers’ rights and the national economy, as well as an abandonment of all the progress we have made around issues such as tackling international crime, terrorism and climate change. Theresa May has allowed the hard line Brexiteers within her own party and the right wing media to dictate the form of Brexit, discounting the views of the 48% who voted to remain and more importantly disregarding the national interest. In Hornsey and Wood Green we secured the highest remain vote in the UK with 81.5%. The best way I can represent my constituents and indeed protect our national interest is to vote against invoking Article 50. Finally, over the past year we have seen hate crimes soar to their highest levels in recent times alongside an increasing wave of xenophobic nationalism. It is critical that MPs from across the house and indeed civil society in general counter such poisonous rhetoric and continue to make the case for a progressive relationship between the UK and our European partners. With warmest regards, Catherine West MP

Ali · January 2017

Frabruce, don't get too depressed yet. From what I can make out it is very likely the against Article 50 vote will be in three figures. What seems to be happening is that Scotland is being walked into independence referendum as it seems its government can't do much to represent the overwhelming vote to remain. God help England if that is successful especially outside London. I just don't get what moist leavers get out of this except maybe the return of £s shilling and pence !

grenners · January 2017

Snp are using the brexit issue to stir up resentment against the English. I don't believe that it will work. If it does, good for them.

Papa · January 2017

We had a referendum that unfortunately just asked people if they wanted to Remain in or Leave the EU. With hindsight it would have been a good idea to ask how they wanted to do that. But we didn't. People voted to leave. The score is irrelevant, under the pre-defined rules, Leave won. Those who didn't vote, could have voted. (It was obvious something was going on.) They forfeited their decision. MPs should abide by the decision made in the referendum and start the process of us leaving the EU, as that was what the referendum was quite clearly to make a decision on - arguing otherwise is daft. They should vote to trigger Article 50 - even the Catherine Wests of this world. I'd rather we didn't leave the EU, but that is what we decided to do. The priority should be to make it as amicable and mutually beneficial for the UK and Europe as possible. The real shame here is that the first thing on the cards should have been a statement from both sides saying that all those EU citizens already living in the UK, or UK citizens living in the EU, would be guaranteed they could remain there. I think Theresa May has made it pretty clear that she would do this, if the EU reciprocated. The EU on the other hand hasn't done that. I think May should take the lead and just do it.

J_R · January 2017

More devolution is the only way to sort out the issues with the disenfranchised. For instance, London needs more power. We contribute a significant amount to the coffers of this country and will need to provide more and more in the future now because of this Brexit mess that Londoners did not vote for. London is now a different economy to the rest of country, so much so that it needs more devolved powers. What was it the Americans cried in the Civil War? "No Taxation Without Representation!" Well think this should be applied to London - we produce a significant amount of value for the country and we need devolved powers to go with it. We need an honest debate about how much Londoners pay in tax and what they can do with it. One area that Londoners need to be aware of is the massive planned budget cuts to schools in London. Currently London schools tend to get more per child than other areas and this is being phased out. I'd argue that the tax take from London means that we can spend more on our schools! This school issue is a massive problem for our community. Same for police.

Arkady · January 2017

@""Papa L" I agree with much of what you say. Where I disagree is with your suggestion that the myriad flaws in the referendum question and process should not affect what comes next. I agree that Article 50 should be triggered in principle. However, given the aforementioned flaws, and given that it seems very likely that a substantial chunk of the 52% will prefer the status quo to the Hard Brexit, Singapore-with-nuclear-weapons option that we seem to actually be getting (rather than an EEA deal or something in between), it seems entirely reasonable that the final deal should be put to a referendum. I'm not sure what reasonable arguments can be made against that. If they believe so much in direct democracy, the sovereignty of the people and all that, then what do they have to fear? Only a referendum on that final deal (not, I hasten to add, a 'second referendum' on the same question) will genuinely settle this matter, otherwise remainers will cry betrayal for a generation (i promise you, we will).

grenners · January 2017

Another referendum based on daft campaigning from both sides citing wild economic predictions taken from various organisations with hidden agendas based on who ever funded them? Another fear based campaign from remain and Boris in a red bus?

grenners · January 2017

......rather than have Obama come over and try to verbally hack our democratic process....we could have Trump saying the opposite......

Arkady · January 2017

If you're arguing that referenda on incredibly complicated questions are a bad idea then I agree. But if you think the first one was legitimate, which you seem to, then you'll struggle to explain why a subsequent one wouldn't be.

Ali · January 2017

Papa L The referendum was an advisory one. If it was meant to be completely binding it should have had a higher threshold. Cameron did this entirely for Conservative party management reasons ie the 92 who are now trying to drive the agenda before too many people wake up and slow down of stop this wrecking on the UK. We are a much richer and safety country being part of the EU than being standalone. Grenners thinks he is going to get away from EU law, maybe he should go to this: http://events.ucl.ac.uk/event/event:q1i-iw2470zs-jzcjxy/lunch-hour-lectures-the-global-reach-of-eu-law

grenners · January 2017

You are saying the first referendum was not legitimate? How? Doesn't matter why is was called.....it asked a question and the people voted how can the result not be legitimate other than the outcome is distasteful to you?

Sutent · January 2017

The sad thing is whilst this dog whistling Brexit is going on the real underlying reason why most people voted brexit is still continuing. Neo-liberal policies, austerity, poor housing, worsening education, un-affordable higher education, rising food bank numbers, zero hour contract jobs the list goes on. The NHS and social care its on its knees due to under funding. None of this is due to the EU.

krappyrubsnif · January 2017

What Sutent said.

grenners · January 2017

.....and the EU will improve all that?

Arkady · January 2017

I, in the long tradition of British political theory, believe in representative democracy, not direct democracy. Direct democrats (Douglas Carswell is a good contemporary example) believe that the ultimate aim should be to scrap politicians altogether and just make every decision by referenda. I regard this as an enormous error - political decision-making requires properly trained professionals to make decisions*, just as is true of any complex decision-making. Reducing such complexities to single politicised questions decided by a majority who often haven't the faintest idea what they are voting for is a recipe for a) bad decision-making and b) demagogic majoritarianism of the worst order. I can see a case for referendums on certain local issues - whether to build that housing development, whether to implement that traffic-calming scheme, etc. but not multi-faceted, inter-generational issues on the scale of Brexit. That said, the Brexit referendum was legitimate to the extent that it complied with our representative, parliamentary democratic constitution, i.e. it was created by parliament to advise parliament on what parliament should do. However, advisory as it may be according to our constitution, I think that it would be seen as illegitimate to overturn the result without a further referendum. *That's not to say that I think our current political crop are sufficiently well trained, but that's another question.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Article 50

Comments