EU referendum are you in or out

[pogo]

The noise from the government now is that MPs must do the “right thing”, which suggests they have already given up hope that the Supreme Court will promptly reverse the High Court verdict. Having read some more on it that’s not surprising; the verdict was unanimous, clear, and based on sound legal arguments. E.g.

High Court Doesn’t Care If the People Want Brexit

Not the sort of thing the Supreme Court is likely to overturn. Hence the mutterings from politicians establishing their position ahead of the debate and vote in parliament. Even some talk of an election, if the government cannot get what it wants from parliament, to establish a clear mandate for invoking Article 50.

[tufty]

Even some talk of an election, if the government cannot get what it wants from parliament, to establish a clear mandate for invoking Article 50.

Sadly, it seems highly unlikely that parliament will deny Article 50 entirely. Even assuming that Labour, the LibDems, the UUP and SNP all vote to block Maggie May's madness with no abstentions, it would still take a pretty big Tory rebellion to carry it off. At which point, it's more than likely the government would introduce a confidence motion, which would either pull the tory rebels back into line, or give them a chance to go to the urns over it after deselecting any prominent rebels "pour encourager les autres". A general election acting as a proxy second referendum, but with a FPTP result pretty much guaranteeing a Tory government with a "clear mandate".

50 will get triggered, far as I can tell. Can't see any reasonable way for it not to happen. About the only hope for sanity is that parliament manage to force continued membership of the EEA, whatever the cost in terms of funding, acceptance of regulations, and, above all, free movement.

[merman]

Maggie May "grudgingly" accepted the judges' decision before heading off on a trade visit to India. But she still wants to push ahead with her timetable, meaning Parliament will get little or no time to debate it.

[pogo]

The Tory majority is tiny. That‘s in part why we are where we are now: Cameron could not afford to ignore the restive anti-EU minority, hence the referendum.

So if all the other parties come out in opposition it would only take a few defections. And it’s easy to imagine a few doing so: die hard remainers, and/or those whose constituents voted Remain. With Leave winning by only a couple of percent there must be almost as many constituencies that voted Remain as voted Leave.

It probably depends on what Labour does though. If they come out solidly opposed to Article 50 being triggered it might be hard for the government. Anything else though it becomes much easier. Goodness knows what Labour will do, they seem too busy devising ways to shoot themselves in the foot at the moment. They certainly don’t want to trigger a general election, if they have any sense.

Perhaps more likely than outright opposition is MPs insisting they have some say in the government’s negotiating position. Not sure how that would work though, as negotiations don’t start until after Article 50 is triggered, after which any deal on offer will be take it or leave it, there will be no room for parliamentary debate.

And of course there’s the House of Lords, who if the commons don’t might feel obliged to add their own amendments to any legislation, to tie the government’s hands.

[(o)(o)]

Maggie May "grudgingly" accepted the judges' decision before heading off on a trade visit to India. But she still wants to push ahead with her timetable, meaning Parliament will get little or no time to debate it.

OMG... bitch defended the media for attacking the judiciary.

She knows these judges can't respond.. it's the responsiblity of the Justice Secretary.

Inciting right wing attacks on the workings of our constitution.. This woman is dangerous..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... es-confirm

[(o)(o)]

Parliament enacts laws not government.

To be pedantic - but it's important to pick up on this ubiquitous abuse of language, as it seems to have horribly distorted how people interpret things - Parliament is the government.

What the Cabinet represents is the executive branch of government. Parliament, collectively, is the legislative branch of government. While the courts - Supreme Court, High Court, Crown Court, etc. - represent the judicial branch of government.

It's not "the government" versus Parliament or versus the courts, as they are also branches of "the government" too.

That's not my understanding.

Parliament is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom. It alone possesses legislative supremacy and thereby ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and its territories.

The prime minister and the other most senior ministers belong to the supreme decision-making committee - the Cabinet - sit in Parliament and are accountable to it. The government is dependent on Parliament to make primary legislation - this is why I say Parliament enacts laws not government.

That's my understanding - I'm open to correction.

Furthermore the judiciary and BoE are supposed to be independent of the government. MayHeM's goons have already tried to politicise the BoE, and now they are trying to undermine the judiciary and that can only be political.

The Enabling Act was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.

[gravy]

That's mostly right except we have statutory instruments.

They're meant to be used bring in subordinate legislation that bolsters an existing act but with a lot less scrutiny in the commons and usually has a free pass through the Lords.

The government tried to abuse that with new tax credit laws and the Lords told them to fuck off. Caused a big stink that culminated in all manner of threats by the Cons to fuck the Lords.

It was pretty funny and a good example of why we need a second chamber with real powers to help prevent any government taking the piss.

[(o)(o)]

Translation of this German propaganda is slightly wrong.. The men are mostly lawyers, and politicans...

The DM attack is actually worse !!!

This German propaganda is from 1933- year of the enabling act which turned their democracy into a dictatorship.

[Harlequin]

The translation is almost entirely wrong.

Whilst it is true that the newspaper clipping is from Germany in 1933, the red text underneath is completely inaccurate. The translation is NOT as stated in red lettering, but actually says "Traitors exiled from the German Community". Additionally the people pictured were NOT judges. The picture has been cropped and is from a picture of some 24 members of the then German SPD (Social Democrat Party), all of whom were outspoken against Hitler's "Enabling Act". Nazi Party intimidation forced them to reluctantly accept the passing of the Act. Most outspoken of these were Mr Otto Wels (second from left) and Dr. Rudolf Breitscheid (second from right) who fled after the Act was passed. Wels went into exile in the Territory of the Saar Basin, which at the time was under League of Nations control; in August 1933, he was deprived of his citizenship. Breitscheid emigrated to France by way of Switzerland, with the help of Alfred Faust. Another SPD party member not pictured in this version but present on the original is Dr Alfred Apfel, a German lawyer, criminal lawyer and author of Jewish descent. In February of 1933 he was arrested in connection with the burning of the Reichstag building and spent 10 days in Spandau prison in Berlin. He fled to France shortly afterwards having been tipped off of a further arrest warrant against him.

A copy of the original picture can be found on this biography (German) of Dr Apfel here (where I was able to properly read Mr Wels name and hence had a start point on debunking the picture): http://www.hans-dieter-arntz.de/spuren_ ... chen_famil…

The text under the headline is publicly announcing the stripping of German citizenship of those pictured.

[(o)(o)]

The translation is almost entirely wrong.

Whilst it is true that the newspaper clipping is from Germany in 1933, the red text underneath is completely inaccurate. The translation is NOT as stated in red lettering, but actually says "Traitors exiled from the German Community". Additionally the people pictured were NOT judges. The picture has been cropped and is from a picture of some 24 members of the then German SPD (Social Democrat Party), all of whom were outspoken against Hitler's "Enabling Act". Nazi Party intimidation forced them to reluctantly accept the passing of the Act. Most outspoken of these were Mr Otto Wels (second from left) and Dr. Rudolf Breitscheid (second from right) who fled after the Act was passed. Wels went into exile in the Territory of the Saar Basin, which at the time was under League of Nations control; in August 1933, he was deprived of his citizenship. Breitscheid emigrated to France by way of Switzerland, with the help of Alfred Faust. Another SPD party member not pictured in this version but present on the original is Dr Alfred Apfel, a German lawyer, criminal lawyer and author of Jewish descent. In February of 1933 he was arrested in connection with the burning of the Reichstag building and spent 10 days in Spandau prison in Berlin. He fled to France shortly afterwards having been tipped off of a further arrest warrant against him.

A copy of the original picture can be found on this biography (German) of Dr Apfel here (where I was able to properly read Mr Wels name and hence had a start point on debunking the picture): http://www.hans-dieter-arntz.de/spuren_ ... chen_famil…

The text under the headline is publicly announcing the stripping of German citizenship of those pictured.

I've seen various translationas, and from German speakers too, which differ again ... but they all infer basically the same thing, with far too many parallel's to what's going on in the UK right now. See David Norfolks reply.

[Little stoned kiwi]

I didn't know a thread could both jump the shark and Godwin itself before this one.

[gumboot]

It doesn't count until someone posts a picture of Hitler jumping over a shark in water-skis.

[Harlequin]

The translation is almost entirely wrong.

…
I've seen various translationas, and from German speakers too, which differ again ... but they all infer basically the same thing, with far too many parallel's to what's going on in the UK right now. See David Norfolks reply.

It is because of Mr Norfolk's comments that I wrote "almost". I find the original connection to the Enabling Act far more interesting and relevant than the incorrect depiction of the SPD members as judges.

[KlaxonCow]

It doesn't count until someone posts a picture of Hitler jumping over a shark in water-skis.

[pogo]

BTW, don’t hold out much hope of Labour blocking the vote on Article 50 when it hits parliament. You might have thought after a second leadership election in 12 months Labour might at last be getting its act together and doing what they are paid for as official opposition, opposing the government. No.

Why Labour can't get its act together on Brexit

the Labour leadership has busied itself this week with the infighting and debating the direction of a grassroots radical left group. The Conservatives, the High Court, the media and the general public have got on with the business of debating the direction of the country.

David Bloom, the chief FX strategist of HSBC, has so far encapsulated Britain’s entire political situation with more incision than anyone else. “The pound,” he recently commented, “has become the de facto official opposition to the government’s policies.” I’ll bet a lot more that Labour won’t be usurping its place any time soon.