More than 80 MPs join Lib Dem plot to force Government to hold a second referendum on Brexit terms

Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 11 November 2016 • 9:54PM | Christopher Hope and Peter Dominiczak

[Olog-hai]

More than 80 MPs are plotting to stage a Parliamentary vote calling for a second Brexit referendum.

In a move that prompted anger from Conservative ministers a coalition of MPs led by Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said that they now intend to force a vote calling for another referendum of the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU.

Theresa May’s Government is appealing a High Court ruling which stated that she must get Parliament’s approval before triggering Article 50, which formally begins the Brexit negotiations with Brussels. If she loses the appeal, Europhile backbenchers have vowed to lay down amendments in a bid to delay or even stop Britain’s exit from the EU. …

[Does so]

“The People” haven’t spoken, after all...

[tumblindice]

Gee, that sounds familiar: “We didn’t get what we want. We demand a do-over!”

[Repeal 16-17]

With this and the riots erupting from Liberals angry that Donald Trump won the Presidency, we see again that Liberals despise the People having any say in their government. If the British Parliament voids the vote of the British People, it will have lost all legitimacy and the Prime Minister should invoke Article 50.

[jsanders2001]

The NWO doesn’t want to let go. I feel the same thing is happening with Clintons. I don’t think they’ve given up trying to scheme her back into the WH some way. I just have this gut feeling that Soros is running major interference for them by using his “anti-Trump protestors”. The MSM is putting them on the air constantly making it look like they’re going to burn the cities down. I haven’t seen Obama or Hillary ask them to stop rioting so the implication is that they approve of it.

[Olog-hai]

I’d rather she would be smarter and invoke rebus sic stantibus, which would utterly remove the overbearing advantage the EU gave itself in exit negotiations according to this Article 50 (text below).

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
   
   
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
   
   In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
   
   
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
   
   
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
   
   A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   
   
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Take note of the language of the second paragraph of section 2 especially.

[MHT]

Would it be as complicated and slow if the EU decided to kick a member out? Like a roach motel... you walk in and never get out.

[C210N]

If they get enough petition signatures, perhaps they could get the electoral college to vote them out of the EU...

oh wait, I’m mixing up countries. The left has got me so mixed up, can’t keep track of them!!

[onona]

“They” are playing with fire

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You seem to be overlooking S.1 — “constitutional requirements”. It seems that the High Court has determined that the constitution requires consulting Parliament. In Britain, Parliament is supreme.

Please note: I’m not defending a do-over.

[grania]

The NWO does not want to let go

I'll bring it one step further. The NWO will not let go. Greece voted out and they were able to buy off the leaders. In Britain, they can't buy off the leader, so they'll try the courts. In Libya, Egypt, Syria, Kiev they couldn't buy off the leaders and the courts didn't have that kind of power, so they manipulated to ignite violent regime-toppling protests.

Trump can't be bought off. The courts are too powerful, but the election doesn't seem to be in a place where it can be overturned. So, we're at that next level....ignite violent regime-changing protests.

This is all so astounding to anyone who has been a current events/political nerd her whole adult life. I never thought I'd be in that place where I sincerely believed that the invisible had would destroy what it can't have, with smug confidence that they'll control what emerges from the ashes.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Portland rioting at this level will smarten up enough people on the West Coast. Baltimore and Ferguson burning seem to have had that impact on the East and the the Midwest.

I cyber-ramble a bit. These thoughts have been rattling around in my head, keeping me awake. Typing as I solidy them clears my mind!

[jsanders2001]

< I cyber-ramble a bit. These thoughts have been rattling around in my head, keeping me awake. Typing as I solidy them clears my mind!

Well I don't think any one of us ever thought we'd actually be LIVING through Revelation a few years ago yet there's been enough crazy going around the last 8 years I still can't believe what's happened. It's like the world was this place where you knew when a lie was a lie and or the truth was the truth and then BAM, Obama. Master liar and deceiver with a story like Rosemary's Baby raised by Satanists then becoming Damien Thorne then moving onto the Manchurian Candidate as though Michael Crichton pieced it all together.

I'm glad I have solace in the Word, its Author, and know the end of this twisted tale, otherwise I'd be living in real fear. These are some crazy times we 're livin' in.

[SteveH]

may will eventually need to dissolve parliament

[Winniesboy]

Correct. Had Parliament voted for a binding, rather than an advisory referendum in the first place, this would not have arisen. But since we are where we are, the final decision has to be by Parliament, not Government.

However, it seems that the Government's appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court ruling may be based on an argument that the Article 50 disengagement process is theoretically cancellable by Parliament at any time up to the final departure. If the Supreme Court accepts this, then the sovereignty of Parliamanet would be reconfirmed, and there would be no further obstacle to invoking Article 50.

[Olog-hai]

That's presuming abiding by the Treaty of Lisbon and Article 50. Invoking rebus sic stantibus nullifies said treaty and gives the advantage to the UK.

[Twinkie]

GEORGE SORE-ASS needs to be escorted OUT of this country.

Perhaps O-BAMA wants to pull an O-DINGA and tacitly
approve of RIOTS and even MURDERS in order to reverse
the outcome of an election. (If I recall correctly, OBAMA
went over to Africa and helped his cousin, RAILA ODINGA gin
up riots that forced his cousin’s “acceptance” as a sort
of “co-President”. (Another man was elected President.”

AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA, NOT IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

YOU have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
“MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN!!”

[Ozark Tom]

If Parliament approached a vote with many many newly vacant seats, the remainder might take stock of how precarious life can be.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You might prevail in a debate with constitutional lawyers -- I don't know. I admit I'm out of my depth there. However, I suspect that also applies to about 99.99999% of the population of Britain or Europe.

Perhaps, if you could express the principle in plain, forceful English -- as Trump would do, or Churchill would have done -- your argument might be convincing.

I'm aware that there are probably several hundred shelf-feet of legal texts relating to the phrase rebus sic stantibus; but, like almost everyone, I haven't read them, nor do I intend to read them, nor is it likely I would understand them if I did read them.

If you could boil everything down to a rallying cry as powerful as "Make America great again", or "build a wall", or "lock her up" -- then, you might sway the voters.

[Olog-hai]

Well, just for the record, rebus sic stantibus (which means “things thus standing”) is a principle from the Vienna Conventions (Article 62) whereby a treaty becomes inapplicable due to a fundamental change in circumstances surrounding the tenets of the treaty and the conditions of its making. Given several fiat alterations of the Treaty of Lisbon by the EU, especially when it came to the financial crisis but in other cases too, the UK would be well within its rights to invoke it.