Government loses article 50 court fight
Scroll to see replies
Original post by QE2
And now, a staunch Leave supporting Tory MP (and QC) has resigned over the gov'ts undemocratic approach to Brexit!
Ouch!
Ouch!
The woman who brought the legal challenge has received numerous death threat she and someone online called for her to be 'publically hanged'.
What a lovely country we are becoming.
Original post by QE2
So, you agree that the EU never "made our laws for us" as you claimed.
I notice that you still didn't say which particular EU directives you consider to have adversely affected UK legislation.
Personally, I have no issue with someone encouraging our gov't to ensure certain minimum standards in employment, H&S, law, etc, etc, are met and maintained, whover they may be.
So, I'll ask you again, which "EU laws" that the UK has been "forced to accept" would you repeal? Come on, you must be able to think of one. After all, it is the reason that you voted leave, wasn't it (you also forgot to mention if you are old enough to have voted).
I notice that you still didn't say which particular EU directives you consider to have adversely affected UK legislation.
Personally, I have no issue with someone encouraging our gov't to ensure certain minimum standards in employment, H&S, law, etc, etc, are met and maintained, whover they may be.
So, I'll ask you again, which "EU laws" that the UK has been "forced to accept" would you repeal? Come on, you must be able to think of one. After all, it is the reason that you voted leave, wasn't it (you also forgot to mention if you are old enough to have voted).
As I said, it depends on what one means by 'our laws'. You like playing with words, I'll pay ping pong with you on this.
I will also reiterate that the EU regulations impose mandatory requirement on our laws and therefore directly affecting them, in range of areas such as employment to food, from industry to justice.
Also just want to remind you directives have no legal effect in law (goes to show how much you know about laws). Regulations do, and they are mandatory.
For a range of EU laws that affects every EU national, you can educate yourself on this page :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law
"European Union law*is a system of rules operating within the member states of the*European Union. Since the founding of the*Coal and Steel Community*after*World War II, the EU has developed to achieve peace and*social justice*for its people and in the global community.[2]*The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend*nation-states*for the purpose of cooperation and*human development."
Original post by Bornblue
The woman who brought the legal challenge has received numerous death threat she and someone online called for her to be 'publically hanged'.
What a lovely country we are becoming.
What a lovely country we are becoming.
It's all inspired by the tabloids and even now the broadsheets - the Telegraph this morning looked like something from Nazi Germany - Goebbels would have been proud.
The country has been hijacked by a tiny group of very rich offhored oligarchs with their own petty agendas, using the media groups they control.
Basically it is the same process that has occurred in Russia under Putin and presumably in the US shortly under Trump. It is the late manifestation of capitalism, a transfer into a full gangster totalitarian state.
Original post by seaholme
Two points.
1) As a member of the EU we had a say in all of these laws, the ability to propose, veto and vote on them.
2) As non-members we will have to follow most of them anyway, in order to trade our goods and services with the EU - regardless of whether we stay in the single market or not. However we will no longer have any input.
1) As a member of the EU we had a say in all of these laws, the ability to propose, veto and vote on them.
2) As non-members we will have to follow most of them anyway, in order to trade our goods and services with the EU - regardless of whether we stay in the single market or not. However we will no longer have any input.
1) The message is that people who voted Brexit want full control and accountability of our laws. One could say we can veto, but that is not ideal to do in an organisation in which political penalty could be applied to the vetoing state. It is not easy to veto when other countries have so much power and influence over you. I must also note that not all legislations can be vetoed.
It is actually not possible for European parliament or member state to propose legislation. It is proposed by the EC, which is an unelected body.
2) As a non-EU member we have the freedom to not adopt EU laws on non-trade areas. We would only have to comply to EU regulations on EU trade which means we are more flexible and competitive at trading with other non-EU countries.
Please don't assume that our regulatory standard will erode if the UK is to have is own regulations in place of EU regulations post Brexit. The UK actually has stricter regulations in many areas on top of EU laws (which imposes a compulsory minimum) especially in agriculture and maternity leave rights. It will just mean that the UK will be able to tailor its own laws with our own representatives (MPs).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
LOL, so you'd say that if remain won?
Explain to me why we should ever have a referendum if the result is not to be implemented?
Explain to me why a parliament that votes 6 to 1 for a referendum to then not implement it's verdict should not be held accountable for this?
Explain to me why we should ever have a referendum if the result is not to be implemented?
Explain to me why a parliament that votes 6 to 1 for a referendum to then not implement it's verdict should not be held accountable for this?
Legally irrelevant.
Original post by Bornblue
Legally irrelevant.
Yet farcical, incendiary and detrimental to our prospects.
If remain 'elites' had a position that EU membership was indispensible and there is only one sensible outcome, that they should know best with ultimate power why have a referendum? You can't trivialize that, it is the ultimate stupidity and irresponsibility, and you can't hold referendums on the basis that only one result is respectable.if parliament is to have ultimate authority...if so then this matter should be treated in exactly the same way as the death penalty.
Fact is, they wanted a sealed debate, one remain win, and all over, further political integration forever, which would have been terrible for our economy, and all the Eurozone countries and those who entered the Euro.
As far as I'm concerned they will deserve the incendiary consequences stirred up by their contemptible behaviour. Treating the public like their pawns when they are supposed to be public servants.
Oh, and it isn't Brexit that will make us a laughing stock, as much as returning to a diminished EU that may have had other nations exit, with our tail between our legs and greatly cowed, and dictated to by an increasingly dominant Germany.
I guess the remainers would still attempt to portray this as 'indepensible' to our future.
(edited 7 years ago)
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, I admit, so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said.
It is a storm in a teacup. Everyone needs to calm down dear.
There has to be vote in the Commons to trigger article 50 (assuming the Supreme Court case is lost, it might not be) that is all there is to it.
Almost all the Tory Party will support it. Labour will be faced with supporting it, or an immediate general election in which they will lose their seats. Labour seats are disproportionately pro Brexit.
Enough Labour MPs will support the motion to get it through.
If the vote falls however there will be chaos. I don't see how the country will be governable. Then we do need to worry.
.
It is a storm in a teacup. Everyone needs to calm down dear.
There has to be vote in the Commons to trigger article 50 (assuming the Supreme Court case is lost, it might not be) that is all there is to it.
Almost all the Tory Party will support it. Labour will be faced with supporting it, or an immediate general election in which they will lose their seats. Labour seats are disproportionately pro Brexit.
Enough Labour MPs will support the motion to get it through.
If the vote falls however there will be chaos. I don't see how the country will be governable. Then we do need to worry.
.
Original post by Edmund Monfort
It's almost as if the Brexiteers only believe in "sovereignty" and "taking back control of our own country" when it suits them!
Ah yes, as opposed to those who would want to use parliamentary sovereignty to make sure parliament is less and less sovereign over time and totally controlled by EU law and directives.
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Yet farcical, incendiary and detrimental to our prospects.
If remain 'elites' had a position that EU membership was indispensible and there is only one sensible outcome, that they should know best with ultimate power why have a referendum? You can't trivialize that, it is the ultimate stupidity and irresponsibility, and you can't hold referendums on the basis that only one result is respectable.if parliament is to have ultimate authority...if so then this matter should be treated in exactly the same way as the death penalty.
Fact is, they wanted a sealed debate, one remain win, and all over, further political integration forever, which would have been terrible for our economy, and all the Eurozone countries and those who entered the Euro.
As far as I'm concerned they will deserve the incendiary consequences stirred up by their contemptible behaviour. Treating the public like their pawns when they are supposed to be public servants.
Oh, and it isn't Brexit that will make us a laughing stock, as much as returning to a diminished EU that may have had other nations exit, with our tail between our legs and greatly cowed, and dictated to by an increasingly dominant Germany.
I guess the remainers would still attempt to portray this as 'indepensible' to our future.
If remain 'elites' had a position that EU membership was indispensible and there is only one sensible outcome, that they should know best with ultimate power why have a referendum? You can't trivialize that, it is the ultimate stupidity and irresponsibility, and you can't hold referendums on the basis that only one result is respectable.if parliament is to have ultimate authority...if so then this matter should be treated in exactly the same way as the death penalty.
Fact is, they wanted a sealed debate, one remain win, and all over, further political integration forever, which would have been terrible for our economy, and all the Eurozone countries and those who entered the Euro.
As far as I'm concerned they will deserve the incendiary consequences stirred up by their contemptible behaviour. Treating the public like their pawns when they are supposed to be public servants.
Oh, and it isn't Brexit that will make us a laughing stock, as much as returning to a diminished EU that may have had other nations exit, with our tail between our legs and greatly cowed, and dictated to by an increasingly dominant Germany.
I guess the remainers would still attempt to portray this as 'indepensible' to our future.
The case yesterday was a legal case, not a political one.
It simply stated, as a matter of British Constitutional Law, the legal processes by which we must adhere to in order to legally trigger Article 50.
The judges ruled a legal issue on a matter of law. The referendum was non legally binding so could not be taken into account by the judges.
Why are you getting so outraged about our courts making a correct legal decision?
Original post by astutehirstute
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, I admit, so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said.
It is a storm in a teacup. Everyone needs to calm down dear.
There has to be vote in the Commons to trigger article 50 (assuming the Supreme Court case is lost, it might not be) that is all there is to it.
Almost all the Tory Party will support it. Labour will be faced with supporting it, or an immediate general election in which they will lose their seats. Labour seats are disproportionately pro Brexit.
Enough Labour MPs will support the motion to get it through.
If the vote falls however there will be chaos. I don't see how the country will be governable. Then we do need to worry.
.
It is a storm in a teacup. Everyone needs to calm down dear.
There has to be vote in the Commons to trigger article 50 (assuming the Supreme Court case is lost, it might not be) that is all there is to it.
Almost all the Tory Party will support it. Labour will be faced with supporting it, or an immediate general election in which they will lose their seats. Labour seats are disproportionately pro Brexit.
Enough Labour MPs will support the motion to get it through.
If the vote falls however there will be chaos. I don't see how the country will be governable. Then we do need to worry.
.
Finally someone sensible.
The decision did not 'block Brexit' nor did it 'fly in the face of democracy'
It simply set out the legal processes for leaving as a matter of British Constitutional Law.
It's utterly disgraceful that the Mail, Express and Telegraph have labelled the judges as 'enemies of the people'.
Just trigger it for goodness sake, I voted remain but this is getting ridiculous now...why are people so afraid of change?
Anyway, if MPs are representatives of their constituency then shouldn't they have to go with what the majority of their constituents wanted?
Original post by astutehirstute
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, I admit, so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said.
It is a storm in a teacup. Everyone needs to calm down dear.
There has to be vote in the Commons to trigger article 50 (assuming the Supreme Court case is lost, it might not be) that is all there is to it.
Almost all the Tory Party will support it. Labour will be faced with supporting it, or an immediate general election in which they will lose their seats. Labour seats are disproportionately pro Brexit.
Enough Labour MPs will support the motion to get it through.
If the vote falls however there will be chaos. I don't see how the country will be governable. Then we do need to worry.
.
It is a storm in a teacup. Everyone needs to calm down dear.
There has to be vote in the Commons to trigger article 50 (assuming the Supreme Court case is lost, it might not be) that is all there is to it.
Almost all the Tory Party will support it. Labour will be faced with supporting it, or an immediate general election in which they will lose their seats. Labour seats are disproportionately pro Brexit.
Enough Labour MPs will support the motion to get it through.
If the vote falls however there will be chaos. I don't see how the country will be governable. Then we do need to worry.
.
The High Court's decision is not that there needs to be a Commons vote but there needs to be an Act of Parliament. The political dynamics of passing a bill are very different to winning a vote on a motion.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by CherishFreedom
For a range of EU laws that affects every EU national, you can educate yourself on this page :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law
"European Union law*is a system of rules operating within the member states of the*European Union. Since the founding of the*Coal and Steel Community*after*World War II, the EU has developed to achieve peace and*social justice*for its people and in the global community.[2]*The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend*nation-states*for the purpose of cooperation and*human development."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law
"European Union law*is a system of rules operating within the member states of the*European Union. Since the founding of the*Coal and Steel Community*after*World War II, the EU has developed to achieve peace and*social justice*for its people and in the global community.[2]*The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend*nation-states*for the purpose of cooperation and*human development."
I asked you which specific EU influenced laws you would want to see repealed.
This is kinda important considering that it was the reason you (presumably) voted Leave. It seems a little odd that you claim that your primary motive was to stop the EU forcing their laws on us, yet you are unable to quote a single law that you are opposed to. Hmm.
Original post by SCIENCE :D
Anyway, if MPs are representatives of their constituency then shouldn't they have to go with what the majority of their constituents wanted?
It's a ridiculous argument that MPs must vote according the the wishes of their constituents!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
The High Court's decision is not that there needs to be a Commons vote but there needs to be an Act of Parliament. The political dynamics of passing a bill are very different to winning a vote on a motion.
Hopefully, the gov't's intended use of such an undemocratic and anachronistic, yet littl-known process will shine a spotlight on it and hopefully lead to legislation to remove it entirely from the statute books.
Original post by Trapz99
The fact is we are leaving the EU. No one is going to stop that from happening. I think we all need to stop thinking that 'the Bremoaners are trying to stop the will of the people'- Brexit will happen, calm down everyone.
The reality is that the Bremoaners are just delaying the inevitable. Not a bright thing to do.
Original post by The Socktor
But the problem I see with this line of thinking is that the referendum only shown what public opinion was on 23 June 2016, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the same now, or that it will be in 3-4 years time, especially since by then, many people who were too young to vote in the referendum will come of age, and a lot of the people who did vote will be dead...
The referendum took place after a long campaign period (and the issue was discussed a lot for years before then) and it was often portrayed as a once in a generation opportunity. Which it is.
It's only been a few months since the referendum, and Brexit hasn't even happened yet, so you can't use public opinion changing in such a short time frame as an argument for anything. You need to wait for a few years at the very least.
Original post by QE2
You seem to have misunderstood (not for the first time).
I asked you which specific EU influenced laws you would want to see repealed.
This is kinda important considering that it was the reason you (presumably) voted Leave. It seems a little odd that you claim that your primary motive was to stop the EU forcing their laws on us, yet you are unable to quote a single law that you are opposed to. Hmm.
I asked you which specific EU influenced laws you would want to see repealed.
This is kinda important considering that it was the reason you (presumably) voted Leave. It seems a little odd that you claim that your primary motive was to stop the EU forcing their laws on us, yet you are unable to quote a single law that you are opposed to. Hmm.
Your assumption is wrong. My motivation for voting leave is to ensure that accountability in the UK's democracy, it is also to ensure that we do not have an unelected body pick-and-choosing the legislation that they prefer to propose.
I am pro-immigration, however I recognise that some people are concerned with the influx and lack of control of our population. I am also pro-market, the UK should retain a competitive and flexible labour market which attracts the best workers in the world.
In terms of change of laws, I would first and foremost like to see a change in immigration law, in the area of providing fair and equal platform for EU and non-EU visa and immigration applicants. At the moment the system is very much favouring European applicants, allowing residency with or without a job in the UK.
There are plenty more examples. Some employers are against the Working Time Regulations, and many in the industry are frustrated by the sheer amount of red tapes which inhibits startups and entrepreneurship.
Again I must emphasise I am simply stating that our own ability to make and be accountable of our own laws, without external influence or legal interference, is a genuine motivation for a lot of Brexiters, which you seem to refuse to accept.
It is always easy to go down the route of accusing your opponents of not knowing what they want, but this is just the lowest of the low in debates. As soon you you recognise and starting arguing on the merit of your opposition's argument, you might start to construct a good argument.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A level History
- Petition to STOP student loans going down
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Terrorist NHS worker planned to bomb hospital
- Evaluate the interpretations
- do you still have to pay back ALL of maintenance loan if you don't use all of it?
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Woman attacked by her own dog, an xl bully
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Should digital media spreading venomous hatred be regulated?
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- Is Israel winning
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
