Turn on thread page Beta

Government loses article 50 court fight watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Indeed. And that is "a consultative process that is not legally or constitutionally binding".

    Except that it is nothing like a party winning an election, and there is no requirement to implement its suggestion.
    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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    LOL, so you'd say that if remain won?
    This argument is a non sequitur. The Remain camp were not advocating any constitutional change. If Remain had won, there would have been no need for Parliament to do anything. It was only a Leave vote that required constitutional change. And any constitutional change must go through Parliament, that's the law - as demonstrated by the High Court ruling.

    Explain to me why we should ever have a referendum if the result is not to be implemented?
    This has nothing to do with Leave/Remain, it is to do with the gov't being required to follow due Parliamentary and legal procedure. This is exactly one of the things that Brexiteers were calling for - the sovereignty of Parliament to be free to control the democratic process in the UK. The HC ruled that the gov't cannot circumvent Parliament when it wants. It's called "democracy".

    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?
    Perhaps they din't think that "The People" would be daft enough to vote for Brexit. They obviously had't counted on the devious dishonesty of some campaigners, or the abject gullibility of some voters. But then, it's not just the UK. Look at the US - Trump still in the running despite everything the voters know about him! You can't predict that level of madness.

    And remember - and I can't stress this enough - the referendum was only a consultative process that is not regally binding. And given the closeness of the result, the level of dishonesty in the Leave campaign, an the magnitude of what's at stake, it seems far more reasonable to discuss it further, wouldn't you say?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    This argument is a non sequitur. The Remain camp were not advocating any constitutional change. If Remain had won, there would have been no need for Parliament to do anything. It was only a Leave vote that required constitutional change. And any constitutional change must go through Parliament, that's the law - as demonstrated by the High Court ruling.

    This has nothing to do with Leave/Remain, it is to do with the gov't being required to follow due Parliamentary and legal procedure. This is exactly one of the things that Brexiteers were calling for - the sovereignty of Parliament to be free to control the democratic process in the UK. The HC ruled that the gov't cannot circumvent Parliament when it wants. It's called "democracy".

    Perhaps they din't think that "The People" would be daft enough to vote for Brexit. They obviously had't counted on the devious dishonesty of some campaigners, or the abject gullibility of some voters. But then, it's not just the UK. Look at the US - Trump still in the running despite everything the voters know about him! You can't predict that level of madness.

    And remember - and I can't stress this enough - the referendum was only a consultative process that is not regally binding. And given the closeness of the result, the level of dishonesty in the Leave campaign, an the magnitude of what's at stake, it seems far more reasonable to discuss it further, wouldn't you say?
    Right, so the electorates of the UK and US had respectable judgement for the last forty years, no problems, and now they are totally irrational all of a sudden, and it couldn't be that their instincts are again right in terms of a paradigm shift? That the problems are real, and the intuitive impossibility of voting for the status quo is correct?

    As for the binding thing, as I say, why have it at all, if all the enlightened are so convinced one result is so stupid? Is this in fact because they wanted the debate sealed for good, and to commit for evermore to further integration? If this is the case, they deserve exactly what they got.

    And I'm not interested in the patronising nonsense about dishonesty, there were massive lies on the remain side, Brexit voters knew that both sides lie and spin, and made a decision about something bigger.

    Just because it is overturning the status quo, doesn't mean independence is an objectively stupid state- we did it for seven centuries, as do our former colonies, and many great countries, who we accept , and celebrate it in. We did it far more successfully than EU membership. I know the ideologues, and advocates of the end of the nation state hate that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    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."
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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) 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).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Legally irrelevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    .
    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'.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Just trigger it for goodness sake, I voted remain but this is getting ridiculous now...why are people so afraid of change?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Anyway, if MPs are representatives of their constituency then shouldn't they have to go with what the majority of their constituents wanted?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    .
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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."
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Nope, that's not how it works. MPs usually vote according to either the party whip or their own conscience (which can be determined by constituents wishes but not necessarily), the vote on capital punishment being a good example. Public opinion 30 years ago was as much as 80% in favour and has only recently approached 50%, yet every vote in the Commons has rejected it, so the MPs were clearly ignoring the will of the people. In fact, it is one of a politician's most important roles - making unpopular decisions. How many times to you think that tax rises and cuts to services have been met with universal approval by the public?

    It's a ridiculous argument that MPs must vote according the the wishes of their constituents!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    In constitutional terms, they were rejecting the use of Royal Prerogative to bypass Parliament.

    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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 home of Results and Clearing

3,090

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.