Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    I'd rather have a smaller GDP, big houses ans mostly green spaces over a population of 80million, box flats and concrete jungles.
    Like these pre-1973 flats?



    Or these from 1961
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Like these pre-1973 flats?



    Or these from 1961
    Look at London, it's a total mess.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    Look at London, it's a total mess.
    So you want to demolish London and restore it to green fields with just a few nice big houses. Marvelous plan

    (where do we hide the workers?)
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by jneill)
    Interesting piece in The Guardian

    "The circumstances surrounding the EU referendum are so bizarre, so chaotic and so impassioned that it is easy to overlook the fact that the UK’s withdrawal from the union would simply consist of two administrative acts performed by the government, acts that are subject to well-settled forms of legal analysis and legal evaluation. The government decides that the UK will withdraw from the EU; and the government notifies the European council of that intention.

    There is strong reason to believe that the government’s withdrawal decision would be unlawful, and hence that the notification would be invalid..."

    read on : https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...u-uk?CMP=fb_gu

    Thoughts? nulli tertius and any other legal folks...

    NB the author is not a journo. He's a professor of international public law
    If it was illegal we wouldn't be having the EU Parliament telling us that if we want to do it we'd better get on with it.

    All these things being thrown around by Remainers who resent losing are pathetic. We lost, and the UK is going to leave the EU. Stop griping and make the best you can out of it.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Tootles)
    If it was illegal we wouldn't be having the EU Parliament telling us that if we want to do it we'd better get on with it.

    All these things being thrown around by Remainers who resent losing are pathetic. We lost, and the UK is going to leave the EU. Stop griping and make the best you can out of it.
    Clause 1 of A50.

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    So it's certainly up for discussion what being "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" actually means.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The article is almost embarrassingly vague, providing very little in the way of substantiation for the opinion. It is possible that the High Court, in response to the Mishcon de Reya judicial review, may determine that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of parliament (I personally don't think so, as the triggering of Article 50 is a treaty matter that inherently falls under the royal prerogative), but it is possible.

    What is not plausible is that the High Court will seek to overturn an Article 50 trigger decision on the basis that the majority in the Brexit referendum was too narrow.

    In the light of the current law, it is possible that a court might take the view that it is arbitrary and unreasonable and disproportionate, in the legal sense of those words, to base the vastly important decision to withdraw from the EU on the opinion expressed by a bare majority of people taking part in a referendum provided for in an act of parliament
    Acts of parliament are not up for judicial review (at least in the sense of being overturned), and I do not think any High Court judge worth their salt would seek to overturn an Article 50 trigger on the basis that a referendum that was provided for by primary legislation was "unreasonable". It simply won't happen.

    but an act of parliament that makes no provision for the legal effect of that referendum – thereby ignoring the opinion
    expressed by a very large minority.
    The author, notably, cites no precedent for this extraordinary claim. There are many decisions that are taken by government to which a large minority object. There are even decisions to which the majority objects. The High Court has always determined that such political questions are non-justiciable and fall to be determined in elections, not in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.

    It seems like the author has an emotional need to question the decision, and has allowed this to cloud his judgment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Robertson is making a completely different argument to Alott. It is certainly possible that Article 50 can only be triggered with parliamentary consent. My own view is that as a matter of treaty law it is clearly a matter of royal prerogative to be exercised by HM ministers. But it is possible that given the ECA's provisions don't merely say that the act gives effect to EC law but that the act itself is, in part, an instrument of accession, that parliamentary approval would be required.

    That is a million miles away from a High Court ruling that because a large minority of people disagree with the decision therefore the government lack the power to make that call. It's sloppy legal reasoning, there is no case where the High Court has ever given such reasoning as a basis for overturning a ministerial decision
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Even more reason to leave the EU. Do you salty remainders not understand that if we vote out and they do not allow us then they are inherently anti democratic and authoritarian. FFS can you people stop trying to subvert democracy like a 1950's dictator, and deal with the fact that you lost.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Like these pre-1973 flats?



    Or these from 1961
    This ignores two things in the 60-80's flats were seen as trendy modern places to live and usually in central areas of a city.

    It also ignores the need for cheap post war housing and the number of council houses needed as most people didn't get mortgages


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by paul514)
    This ignores two things in the 60-80's flats were seen as trendy modern places to live and usually in central areas of a city.

    It also ignores the need for cheap post war housing and the number of council houses needed as most people didn't get mortgages


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No it ignores the idea that we aren't going to demolish London and return it to green fields.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The EU assumes we can back out. If this was an English legal document, we couldn't. I think we probably can back out,

    There is a view that Article 50 has already been triggered. Article 50 says:

    "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention."

    The communique from Tuesday's Council says:

    "The UK Prime Minister informed the European Council about the outcome of the referendum in the UK"
    That doesn't constitute an intention to withdraw. If the referendum were one of the constitutional requirements we have been discussing then that's when it might be.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    That doesn't constitute an intention to withdraw. If the referendum were one of the constitutional requirements we have been discussing then that's when it might be.
    I think you are addressing a different point.

    My comment was in the context of:

    (a) we serve a valid Article 50 notice (parking for the moment the question what amounts to a valid Article 50 notice).

    (b) can we unilaterally withdraw that notice before it expires?

    Europe seems to think we can. If this had been say, a notice to quit a tenancy of property in England, we could not do so.

    The answer to this question determines whether serving an Article 50 notice is the irrevocable step. Obviously all 27 countries could agree that we remain, but some at least are likely to want concessions (not necessarily from us) to agree this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Robertson is making a completely different argument to Alott. It is certainly possible that Article 50 can only be triggered with parliamentary consent. My own view is that as a matter of treaty law it is clearly a matter of royal prerogative to be exercised by HM ministers. But it is possible that given the ECA's provisions don't merely say that the act gives effect to EC law but that the act itself is, in part, an instrument of accession, that parliamentary approval would be required.

    That is a million miles away from a High Court ruling that because a large minority of people disagree with the decision therefore the government lack the power to make that call. It's sloppy legal reasoning, there is no case where the High Court has ever given such reasoning as a basis for overturning a ministerial decision
    There are three different arguments:-


    1 That Parliament must repeal the European Communities Act 1972. That is a truism because otherwise we become like the Catholic wife who considers she is still validly married to the husband who has diverced her and married again. That only needs to occur in good time for our actual departure and would create chaos if brought into force before our departure date

    2 Parliament must by reason of constitutional convention approve giving an Article 50 notice and failure to do so reads through and invalidates a purported Article 50 notice which must be given in accordance with our constitutional arrangements. "Arrangements" is broader than law and includes things required by convention.

    3 Parliament must pass legislation before giving an article 50 notice. This is completely contrary to our traditional constitutional practice but is based on an expansive reading of a case called R v Secretary of State ex parte Fire Brigades Union.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Anyone with half a brain cell would realised Farage was lying when he said the NHS would get £350million, think the Guardian is really clutching at straws with the article.
    That wasn't Farage though. That was the main vote leave campaign who had it written on Buses, the left is just trying to pin it on Farage as a way of demonizing him.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    No it ignores the idea that we aren't going to demolish London and return it to green fields.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never said we were going to.....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by paul514)
    I never said we were going to.....
    No, but my pics where in reply to:

    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    I'd rather have a smaller GDP, big houses ans mostly green spaces over a population of 80million, box flats and concrete jungles.
    and
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    Look at London, it's a total mess.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    19
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    That wasn't Farage though. That was the main vote leave campaign who had it written on Buses, the left is just trying to pin it on Farage as a way of demonizing him.
    Guess that explains his apology after.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Guess that explains his apology after.
    He apologised because too many people believe the lie.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They have already told voters that the £350 million send to EU every week would be given to the NHS a mistake just one day after the referendum. Nothing happened. What stop them saying the Brexit vote is also a mistake too !!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helena#)
    They have already told voters that the £350 million send to EU every week would be given to the NHS a mistake just one day after the referendum. Nothing happened. What stop them saying the Brexit vote is also a mistake too !!!
    To be fair, it was only a suggestion.

    The slogan was:

    'We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.'

    They never pledged it, but simply to highlight what the amount saved could be used.

    Actually it would be wrong to fund only the NHS with the extra money, I'm glad that the government is considering a mixed approach in terms of funding.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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