Remain Camp & Gina Miller
It makes me wonder about the decision for challenging the Referendum to leave the EU by Gina Miller.
Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.
If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?......I think not.
Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.
If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?......I think not.
Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
(edited 7 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by david9078
It makes me wonder about the decision for challenging the Referendum to leave the EU by Gina Miller.
Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.
Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.
Parliament was sovereign in the EU- if it wasn't we wouldn't have been able to leave. Duh. The majority of elected MPs were for remain.
Original post by david9078
If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?
If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?
Doesn't really make sense as a question, because us remaining in the EU wouldn't require an active decision at all (whether by parliament or the government), as nothing would need to be changed.
......I think not.
Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
We're not in political union with Europe.
Original post by david9078
It makes me wonder about the decision for challenging the Referendum to leave the EU by Gina Miller.
Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.
If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?......I think not.
Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.
If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?......I think not.
Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
We were already in the EU so clearly had we voted remain Parliament wouldn't have had to do anything.
However we voted to leave and this case was about the mechanism for leaving. The referendum itself was not legally binding and therefore we need to know the correct legal method of leaving.
The court decided that as a matter of British Constitutional Law that triggering Article 50 could only be done by Parliament.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
Parliament was sovereign in the EU- if it wasn't we wouldn't have been able to leave. Duh. The majority of elected MPs were for remain.
That's debatable, because for as long as a nation is in the European Union, EU legislation is supposed to be supreme and takes priority over national law. That is the point the OP is making. It is rather hypocritical for remainers to suddenly exalt parliamentary supremacy, whilst supporting an institution that stands in stark contrast to it.
She was against the governments way of conducting brexit.
They can't just do what they want and throw shade at everyone when challenged about their strategy.
That's undemocratic!
It's clear she has accepted brexit happened and wants it done right.
They can't just do what they want and throw shade at everyone when challenged about their strategy.
That's undemocratic!
It's clear she has accepted brexit happened and wants it done right.
Original post by Wōden
That's debatable, because for as long as a nation is in the European Union, EU legislation is supposed to be supreme and takes priority over national law. That is the point the OP is making. It is rather hypocritical for remainers to suddenly exalt parliamentary supremacy, whilst supporting an institution that stands in stark contrast to it.
It's not debateable. EU law was supreme because parliament willed it to be so. Same with any other treaty. If we had elected ukip with a parliamentary majority that wouldn't have been the case.
Original post by Davij038
Parliament was sovereign in the EU- if it wasn't we wouldn't have been able to leave. Duh. The majority of elected MPs were for remain.
Parliament can be kicked around by the European Court of Justice, so it's not sovereign. Duh. The difference between the EU and other treaties is that we can be against something and still forced to do it. I can't remember all the numbers now, but whenever Britain was voting against stuff in the EU we were overruled all but once. That doesn't happen with treaties.
Original post by Davij038
Parliament was sovereign in the EU- if it wasn't we wouldn't have been able to leave. Duh. The majority of elected MPs were for remain.
Duh isn't a response. If Parliament was sovereign inside the European Union, the United Kingdom would not have to enact legislation to legalise 'regulations and directives' from the European Parliament.....which clearly isn't the case.
Parliament was never sovereign inside the European Union - the European Communities Act 1972 ensured that.
Original post by anarchism101
Doesn't really make sense as a question, because us remaining in the EU wouldn't require an active decision at all (whether by parliament or the government), as nothing would need to be changed.
It would still need to be approved by Parliament - in effect, endorsing the decision of the referendum to remain in the European Union.
Original post by anarchism101
We're not in political union with Europe.
Yes we are - Britain did not vote to join the EU, it only joined the common market in 1973, but the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 imposed foreign affairs, justice and policing which is essentially political. This is why we have UK Members of the European Parliament for political reasons.
Original post by Shadow Hunters
She was against the governments way of conducting brexit.
They can't just do what they want and throw shade at everyone when challenged about their strategy.
That's undemocratic!
It's clear she has accepted brexit happened and wants it done right.
They can't just do what they want and throw shade at everyone when challenged about their strategy.
That's undemocratic!
It's clear she has accepted brexit happened and wants it done right.
There has to be a flaw in our current unwritten constitution where the The Royal Prerogative was used to declare an illegal war on Iraq......and the Courts did not have the jurisdiction to intervene as the prerogative power was not 'justiciable', we still went to war - how was this democratic ?
.......yet the majority of the people in the United kingdom want to leave the European Union and now the Courts are intervening to pass the decision to Parliament.
Original post by david9078
It would still need to be approved by Parliament - in effect, endorsing the decision of the referendum to remain in the European Union.
It would still need to be approved by Parliament - in effect, endorsing the decision of the referendum to remain in the European Union.
Why? Why would parliament need to vote to affirm a referendum decision which called for nothing to be changed?
Yes we are - Britain did not vote to join the EU, it only joined the common market in 1973, but the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 imposed foreign affairs, justice and policing which is essentially political. This is why we have UK Members of the European Parliament for political reasons.
We joined the European Community, which became the EU. We've elected MEPs to the European Parliament since 1979.
A political union would imply that the UK and other member states had all merged into the EU to become one state and given up their legal personality to the new unified state, as Scotland and England did in 1707, or as the German states did in 1871. That has not taken place - all the EU member states still sit separately on the UN as separate sovereign and recognised states, and the EU lacks such recognition as a state. It is not a political union, but is more accurately described as a supranational federation or confederation.
Original post by david9078
There has to be a flaw in our current unwritten constitution where the The Royal Prerogative was used to declare an illegal war on Iraq......and the Courts did not have the jurisdiction to intervene as the prerogative power was not 'justiciable', we still went to war - how was this democratic ?
.......yet the majority of the people in the United kingdom want to leave the European Union and now the Courts are intervening to pass the decision to Parliament.
There has to be a flaw in our current unwritten constitution where the The Royal Prerogative was used to declare an illegal war on Iraq......and the Courts did not have the jurisdiction to intervene as the prerogative power was not 'justiciable', we still went to war - how was this democratic ?
.......yet the majority of the people in the United kingdom want to leave the European Union and now the Courts are intervening to pass the decision to Parliament.
I was very young while the Iraq war was going on and so I do not know all about it.
But I do believe that parliament were given a vote as to whether to intervene and they passed it. Parliament were given one to have an eu referendum but never whether to invoke article 50 or to be involved in the process.
As this is an issue that will severely affect the people of Britain a certain amount of parliamentary scrutiny must take place to get us the best deal.
The referendum was not legally binding either might I add.
And it should be said, a huge constitutional decisions such as brexit has never occurred before in our country and so it would make sense that things should be made clear.
Original post by jape
Parliament can be kicked around by the European Court of Justice, so it's not sovereign. Duh. The difference between the EU and other treaties is that we can be against something and still forced to do it. I can't remember all the numbers now, but whenever Britain was voting against stuff in the EU we were overruled all but once. That doesn't happen with treaties.
We could still have left though therefore we had sovereignty. If we didn't like it that much we could have left. It's pretty simple really.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by jape
Parliament can be kicked around by the European Court of Justice, so it's not sovereign. Duh. The difference between the EU and other treaties is that we can be against something and still forced to do it. I can't remember all the numbers now, but whenever Britain was voting against stuff in the EU we were overruled all but once. That doesn't happen with treaties.
Parliament had the choice to leave. Joining the EU meant it voluntarily bound itself so Parliament was sovereign as it could choose to exit.
Thank you for the reply's.
1) Another burning question to the remainers who state that the referendum was only 'advisory' is....... if it was only advisory.....why did Parliament stay silent on this issue ?....if it was advisory.....why not express this in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 ?. The Referendum Act is open to the Pepper v Hart interpretation that on its second reading in the House of Commons, the Act intended the result to be 'permanent' - meaning a statutory decision and not just advisory.
Lord Hunt of Wirral, stated during the reading of the Referendum bill that '...Parliament should claim no sovereignty over the people......'sovereignty' is entrusted and leased to Parliament by the people......but the 'freehold' should always remain with the people'.
1) Another burning question to the remainers who state that the referendum was only 'advisory' is....... if it was only advisory.....why did Parliament stay silent on this issue ?....if it was advisory.....why not express this in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 ?. The Referendum Act is open to the Pepper v Hart interpretation that on its second reading in the House of Commons, the Act intended the result to be 'permanent' - meaning a statutory decision and not just advisory.
Lord Hunt of Wirral, stated during the reading of the Referendum bill that '...Parliament should claim no sovereignty over the people......'sovereignty' is entrusted and leased to Parliament by the people......but the 'freehold' should always remain with the people'.
Original post by jape
Parliament can be kicked around by the European Court of Justice, so it's not sovereign. Duh. The difference between the EU and other treaties is that we can be against something and still forced to do it. I can't remember all the numbers now, but whenever Britain was voting against stuff in the EU we were overruled all but once. That doesn't happen with treaties.
Loads of international treaties have provisions for taking legal action against governments, the EU is not special in that regard.
Surely the issue here is, despite wha tthe Daily Mail ad co. seem to want you to believe, that the UK governemnt is completely incapable of writing legislation in a proper and functional manner. If they wanted the referendum to be binding they should have put that in the bill, they didn't because they didn't think.
Original post by mojojojo101
Loads of international treaties have provisions for taking legal action against governments, the EU is not special in that regard.
Surely the issue here is, despite wha tthe Daily Mail ad co. seem to want you to believe, that the UK governemnt is completely incapable of writing legislation in a proper and functional manner. If they wanted the referendum to be binding they should have put that in the bill, they didn't because they didn't think.
Surely the issue here is, despite wha tthe Daily Mail ad co. seem to want you to believe, that the UK governemnt is completely incapable of writing legislation in a proper and functional manner. If they wanted the referendum to be binding they should have put that in the bill, they didn't because they didn't think.
There are plenty of things in our constitution that aren't explicitly written down but are commonly understood. Referenda have never been binding in the same way that until the early 1900s we never had Prime Ministers. An uncodified constitution requires restraint and respect from political actors. The Liberals, SNP and certain petulant Labour MPs clearly lack those things.
Original post by jape
There are plenty of things in our constitution that aren't explicitly written down but are commonly understood. Referenda have never been binding in the same way that until the early 1900s we never had Prime Ministers. An uncodified constitution requires restraint and respect from political actors.
No the problem is that referendums are utterly unsuitable for our system of government.
The Liberals, SNP and certain petulant Labour MPs clearly lack those things.
How so?
Original post by Davij038
No the problem is that referendums are utterly unsuitable for our system of government.
I agree with you, but the public at large seem to be fond so I guess we're stuck with them.
How so?
I don't like referenda but they aren't going away. And so, with that in mind, the responsible thing would be to abide by the precedent set over several referenda over several decades and obey the result even if it's technically non-binding.
Original post by jape
I agree with you, but the public at large seem to be fond so I guess we're stuck with them.
I don't like referenda but they aren't going away. And so, with that in mind, the responsible thing would be to abide by the precedent set over several referenda over several decades and obey the result even if it's technically non-binding.
I don't like referenda but they aren't going away. And so, with that in mind, the responsible thing would be to abide by the precedent set over several referenda over several decades and obey the result even if it's technically non-binding.
Do you have any evidence that the public like referendums? It's far more about party management that popularity IMO
No. I don't agree- our politicians should be entitled to follow their conscience especially if it coincides with the view of their constituents and was not something they voted for.
If you voted for the referendum then you should respect the result or/and resign. Disagree with them or not but most MPs are being consistent.
Original post by jape
There are plenty of things in our constitution that aren't explicitly written down but are commonly understood. Referenda have never been binding in the same way that until the early 1900s we never had Prime Ministers. An uncodified constitution requires restraint and respect from political actors. The Liberals, SNP and certain petulant Labour MPs clearly lack those things.
If you want a piece of legislation to act in some way, then you should be damn sure that it is written that way. Stop blaming the total incompetence of the Tory party (and civil servants who should know better) on members of other parties or the general public.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
- Access to Nursing
- Why i was now approved for the same paymanet ?
- Access course for Adult Nursing
- Access course for Adult Nursing
- Books for Access to Nursing
- Duff Miller/ Independant Sixth Form Colleges
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- Radiotherapy book recommendations
- A-level psych memory 16 markers
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- Whats your favourite books of the 80's?
- Radiotherapy and oncology Journals
- HNC science
- So I am only just realising I am BI
- Christmas is RUINED News Compilation thread Mk II
- Deciding not to go to a festival
- Electrcity Help
- OCR A physics question
- Has anyone met someone from TSR in person?
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 4 minutes ago
Im 17 and my parents took my phone until i graduate in 2 months. how should i cope?Posted 9 minutes ago
Lancaster University MSc Finance 2024/2025 - Interested in sharing a flat/house?Posted 17 minutes ago
I don’t know what i want to do and subject choices are coming to a closeLast reply 19 minutes ago
Is getting a 3rd class honours in interior architecture and design bad?Last reply 25 minutes ago
What'll happen if a uni told me that my application is given to other schools?Last reply 38 minutes ago
Meeting Uni requirements via college AND GCSEPosted 48 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 51 minutes ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 hour ago
Zoom to Zoology? Uni open days, applications & more 2021-Present - a parents takeLast reply 1 hour ago
Deloitte Graduate Scheme 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
