Told'em this Brexit thingy wouldn't turn the way they hoped.

[BaggyTrousers]

plendid tweet from Two Jags Prescott:

Leavers: 'Give us parliamentary sovereignty!'
High Court: 'MPs must vote on Article 50
Leavers: 'We'll appeal to European Court of Justice!'

They can't appeal it to the European Court of Justice as it is a matter of British Constitution therefore the European Court of Justice have no say in the matter.
Oh dear and all the leavers who thought we had given away our sovereignty

You know what Rooster, the more it goes on the clearer it becomes that this is an interTory party squabble that got out of hand and nobody has any idea of how to either put a brake on the runaway train or failing that, who should be driving the bloody thing, let alone where it's going.

The will of the British people, just like the majority of Trump followers is, stop working for your narrow interests and bloody well work for ours. This is just the consequence of a badly thought out, poorly contested public debate where an outcome was delivered that none or damn few of the direct combatants wanted or were prepared for. I will never forget the look of "oh fûck what do I do now" on that twit Johnson's face when the result was announced. Remarkable how little has been seen or heard from him since.

Now you have May's storm troopers hiding behind a veil of secrecy to hide the fact that they don't have a lulu what they are doing, pretending they are keeping their invisible cards close to their chests.

Were I not a compassionate person, I'd laugh my scrote off as I head to Spain......... well, that and the fact that my meagre stipend is paid in HMQ's pound notes.

[Jackie Brown]

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Gary]

Sorry but I have to shout out loud here.

NOBODY FECKIN' BLOCKED FECKIN' BREXIT YESTERDAY!

Still the truth wouldn't sell rubbish newspapers to the great unwashed and the genetically thick.

[BaggyTrousers]

The good old Daily Shyte, conveniently overlooking the fact that this is nothing to do with the EU but entirely to do with British law which our PM was hoping to circumvent, taking rather too much on herself rather than doing what all the BRexit voters wanted - the exercise of proper constitutional parliamentary sovereignty.

I hope this spindly praying mantis isn't seeing herself as the Ruler, she is merely the leader of the government and responsible to parliament and through that, to "we the people" as the Seppos so charmingly put.

I'd love to know the age profile of the mugs who squander 10 nupence on the Daily Shyte, I'd bet there would be damn few younger than me, the feckin' rancid ould pisssmelling fossils.

[Rooster]

I think we need Betty to call in the troops and put the lot of them in the Tower of London

[BR]

I remain in favour of "the deal" after negotiation being voted on by parliament, possibly put to referendum

And what happens if they reject the deal?

[HwoodMike2umate]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... it-ruling/

[BaggyTrousers]

I remain in favour of "the deal" after negotiation being voted on by parliament, possibly put to referendum

And what happens if they reject the deal?

Your question suggests that you believe the world ends if "the deal" is rejected. I would have thought that it is absolutely straightforward. If "the deal" is as bad as I would expect it will be and the country reject it, then we do not leave and attempt to reform from within.

Incidentally, I believe in the last 3/4 months there have been many noises in Brussels suggesting that many of the major players are now open to reform having been shaken to their roots by the referendum result. Furthermore I suspect that Cameron confidently expected a clear but not huge vote to remain and would have been planning to use that as a stick to drive a reform or we'll be out before long plan.

Being a confident Eton boy he was dumb enough to allow the referendum to be seen as binding (it's not in law but has largely been accepted as binding) on a simple small majority and that was just incredibly stupid. Significant change should demand a significant majority in favour.

[BR]

I would have thought that it is absolutely straightforward. If "the deal" is as bad as I would expect it will be and the country reject it, then we do not leave and attempt to reform from within.

Maybe I missed something amongst all the misinformation, but is that possible?

Is Article 50 not a trigger. You can't unpull a trigger.

Once 50 is triggered, we can't suddenly say, 'Ah come on lads, we were only messin'. We're leaving and the only debate is timescale and the untangling of treaties.

Should the uk change its mind during that time (as expressed by parliament, referendum, general election, whatever, ...), then we may be able to engage in some sort of fast-track to return to the fold, but presumably that would be without the opt-outs and special arrangements that the UK previously 'enjoyed'.

[BaggyTrousers]

I would have thought that it is absolutely straightforward. If "the deal" is as bad as I would expect it will be and the country reject it, then we do not leave and attempt to reform from within.

Maybe I missed something amongst all the misinformation, but is that possible?

Is Article 50 not a trigger. You can't unpull a trigger.

Once 50 is triggered, we can't suddenly say, 'Ah come on lads, we were only messin'. We're leaving and the only debate is timescale and the untangling of treaties.

Should the uk change its mind during that time (as expressed by parliament, referendum, general election, whatever, ...), then we may be able to engage in some sort of fast-track to return to the fold, but presumably that would be without the opt-outs and special arrangements that the UK previously 'enjoyed'.

In this case BR you can. From the man who wrote the clause:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-37852628

I believe it is fairer to say that Artcle 50 is only a trigger to commence negotiations and is not actually slamming the exit door behind ye.

[HwoodMike2umate]

A wee bit of light reading for the weekend - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... 161103.pdf

[Shan]

Martin McGuinness has refused to rule out whether his party will reverse its abstentionist policy in order for its MPs to vote against Article 50 in Westminster, it has been reported.

[BaggyTrousers]

Martin McGuinness has refused to rule out whether his party will reverse its abstentionist policy in order for its MPs to vote against Article 50 in Westminster, it has been reported.

Always good to see the Shinners moving in the direction of democracy, albeit our democracy is often overrated ........ yet I should of course point out that I would not want anything less good.

I recognise the Shinners as duly elected but their abstentionism helps nobody, this would be a good excuse to dump it.

[Rooster]

Martin McGuinness has refused to rule out whether his party will reverse its abstentionist policy in order for its MPs to vote against Article 50 in Westminster, it has been reported.

Proper order Shan, and if they do I will consider voting for the shinners at next election

[Snipe Watson]

Some wise words in the midst of the hullabaloo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette- ... hp_ref=uk&