Home & Garden0 min ago
Article 50
102 Answers
Parliament - not just Government - has a say in enacting Article 50, according to the High Court's decision just announced.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Vulcan...the Ref. was a consultative one. Nobody is arguing that the result of it should be ignored, least of all me. But Parliament should be able to debate Article 50, and that is all the High Curt was asked to rule on.
I can't see much of a chance that the will of people should or would be overruled by Parliament. But that is NOT what the judges were asked to rule on.
I can't see much of a chance that the will of people should or would be overruled by Parliament. But that is NOT what the judges were asked to rule on.
As far as Nicola Sturgeon is concerned, "the will of the people" in Scotland was that the UK should remain in the EU by 68% to 32%, so she'd be unwise to do otherwise than sharpen her knife!
Having said that, I do not envisage the number of SNP MPs at Westminster being sufficient to change things dramatically.
Nevertheless, it's good to see the Tories now flapping about the need for Theresa May to finally get a public mandate for her premiership.
When Brown became leader of the Labour Party, some barking Tories got dressed up as beer-bottles so that they could follow him around shouting 'Bottler Brown' because HE did not have a general election. You couldn't make it up, as they say!
Having said that, I do not envisage the number of SNP MPs at Westminster being sufficient to change things dramatically.
Nevertheless, it's good to see the Tories now flapping about the need for Theresa May to finally get a public mandate for her premiership.
When Brown became leader of the Labour Party, some barking Tories got dressed up as beer-bottles so that they could follow him around shouting 'Bottler Brown' because HE did not have a general election. You couldn't make it up, as they say!
//As far as Nicola Sturgeon is concerned, "the will of the people" in Scotland was that the UK should remain in the EU by 68% to 32%, so she'd be unwise to do otherwise than sharpen her knife!
Having said that, I do not envisage the number of SNP MPs at Westminster being sufficient to change things dramatically. //
Immaterial, it was a UK referendum not a Scottish vote. If she'd get on with running Scotland instead of interfering in this or screaming for yet another referendum maybe she'd keep Ruth Davidson from snapping at her heels!
Having said that, I do not envisage the number of SNP MPs at Westminster being sufficient to change things dramatically. //
Immaterial, it was a UK referendum not a Scottish vote. If she'd get on with running Scotland instead of interfering in this or screaming for yet another referendum maybe she'd keep Ruth Davidson from snapping at her heels!
// "the will of the people" in Scotland was that the UK should remain in the EU by 68% to 32%//
QM, are your result figures adjusted for 6 months of "remain" inflation, perchance? they're not the results published at the time.....
http://
QM, are your result figures adjusted for 6 months of "remain" inflation, perchance? they're not the results published at the time.....
http://
I’d be happy for Theresa May to call an election, although considering the non-existent opposition, it would be a pretty pointless exercise – not something that can be said of Gordon Brown’s tenure It’s difficult to comprehend why some of the electorate relish the prospect of conflict and disharmony within parliament. Nicola Sturgeon, the champion of the will of the Scots on the Brexit issue isn’t quite so supportive of them with regard to their decision to remain in the Union. She’s a duplicitous, megalomaniac of a woman who won’t be happy until Scotland is independent and she will do everything in her power to achieve that.
My apologies...62/38 was correct and I'd transposed the end-figures...but that remains a substantial majority.
As regards the Tories at Holyrood "snapping at the heels" of the First Minister, they have only 31 seats to the SNP's 63. That's an extremely odd interpretation of the phrase. The Tories at Westminster tried to "embiggen" Ruth Davidson by show-casing her at their recent conference in London; perhaps they too imagine that 31 v 63 means heel-snapping! (My thanks to Lisa Simpson for the word, 'embiggen'.)
Ninefingers, in your response at 08.57, you now make it appear as if Naomi was born in Dreghorn and that you don't like her very much! That's what you exclamatory opening sentence there actually means, I'm afraid, whether you meant it or not!
As regards the Tories at Holyrood "snapping at the heels" of the First Minister, they have only 31 seats to the SNP's 63. That's an extremely odd interpretation of the phrase. The Tories at Westminster tried to "embiggen" Ruth Davidson by show-casing her at their recent conference in London; perhaps they too imagine that 31 v 63 means heel-snapping! (My thanks to Lisa Simpson for the word, 'embiggen'.)
Ninefingers, in your response at 08.57, you now make it appear as if Naomi was born in Dreghorn and that you don't like her very much! That's what you exclamatory opening sentence there actually means, I'm afraid, whether you meant it or not!
//The Tories at Westminster tried to "embiggen" Ruth Davidson by show-casing her at their recent conference in London; perhaps they too imagine that 31 v 63 means heel-snapping! (My thanks to Lisa Simpson for the word, 'embiggen'.)
Ninefingers, in your response at 08.57, you now make it appear as if Naomi was born in Dreghorn and that you don't like her very much! //
Ahhh the twisty turny method of changing what people say, very good! Join your local SNP party and become a Nicola clone, she does the twisty turny stuff very very well too. Independance at any cost, is that what you want?? Maybe growing up in Dreghorn she's happy with third world life but I suspect my fellow Scots have greater aspirations.
Naomi obviously knew exactly what I meant!
Again like the Two Fish you rely on numbers, far more to it than that. As far as politicians go in Scotland at the minute Ms Davidson is proving to be the best of a generally bad bunch.
I'm not at "home" but it bothers me that she'd sacrifice what we have, anyway justify for me her desire for Independance when all she wants to do is hook up with an even bigger shower of moneygrabbers and shysters in Europe. Independant means on your own, standing on your own two feet not shuffling off to join something more corrupt.
Ninefingers, in your response at 08.57, you now make it appear as if Naomi was born in Dreghorn and that you don't like her very much! //
Ahhh the twisty turny method of changing what people say, very good! Join your local SNP party and become a Nicola clone, she does the twisty turny stuff very very well too. Independance at any cost, is that what you want?? Maybe growing up in Dreghorn she's happy with third world life but I suspect my fellow Scots have greater aspirations.
Naomi obviously knew exactly what I meant!
Again like the Two Fish you rely on numbers, far more to it than that. As far as politicians go in Scotland at the minute Ms Davidson is proving to be the best of a generally bad bunch.
I'm not at "home" but it bothers me that she'd sacrifice what we have, anyway justify for me her desire for Independance when all she wants to do is hook up with an even bigger shower of moneygrabbers and shysters in Europe. Independant means on your own, standing on your own two feet not shuffling off to join something more corrupt.
some interesting informed comments
I suppose the " 'ooman rights' screamers" ( where is 3T today by the way ? ) have noticed that their heart felt pleas for supremacy to be taken back by parliament is taking effect ....
and they dont like it
Mushie has given the ref for the case
The king in council cannot unmake laws ( case of proclamations 1610)
James II 1677 declaration of indulgence whereby penal laws against catholics would NOT be enforced was declared unlawful in court and then legislated against ( s1 Act of settlement 1701 apparently ) . Sudduv belt and braces on that point then
The Zamora case was more modern
and basically by triggering A50 by a minister, you deprive people of their european treaty rights ... ( access to courts voting in elections standing in elections - european of course ) - which see above you cant do by royal prerogative or order in council
dont read the guardian - read me or the judgement
Zamora case is here by the way
https:/
The king had his greedy greedy eyes on the cargo of the Zamora during war time and changed the rules of the Prize Xourt so that his minions could seize it. Privy Council as a judicial body [erm yeah it used to be one] ruled against the change of the rule of law by an order in council ....
Real other-wordly feel to this thread so far
no - "Brexit what the frack is dat den ?" and no - "jujjiz dey dont know wot they arn abart - ass of Lords dats wot I call dem! yeah"
but they will come - they will come....
I suppose the " 'ooman rights' screamers" ( where is 3T today by the way ? ) have noticed that their heart felt pleas for supremacy to be taken back by parliament is taking effect ....
and they dont like it
Mushie has given the ref for the case
The king in council cannot unmake laws ( case of proclamations 1610)
James II 1677 declaration of indulgence whereby penal laws against catholics would NOT be enforced was declared unlawful in court and then legislated against ( s1 Act of settlement 1701 apparently ) . Sudduv belt and braces on that point then
The Zamora case was more modern
and basically by triggering A50 by a minister, you deprive people of their european treaty rights ... ( access to courts voting in elections standing in elections - european of course ) - which see above you cant do by royal prerogative or order in council
dont read the guardian - read me or the judgement
Zamora case is here by the way
https:/
The king had his greedy greedy eyes on the cargo of the Zamora during war time and changed the rules of the Prize Xourt so that his minions could seize it. Privy Council as a judicial body [erm yeah it used to be one] ruled against the change of the rule of law by an order in council ....
Real other-wordly feel to this thread so far
no - "Brexit what the frack is dat den ?" and no - "jujjiz dey dont know wot they arn abart - ass of Lords dats wot I call dem! yeah"
but they will come - they will come....
Re "twisty-turny", Ninefingers, I most certainly did not "change what you said"; you mis-stated what you meant to write, simple as that. There is only one solitary female name...Naomi...in the relevant contribution and, consequently, the three prenominal uses of the word, 'she' can refer only to her.
Naomi quote: "I’d be happy for Theresa May to call an election." Really? Despite the fact that - under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - there is a law against that put in place by the Tory-led coalition five years ago? Now they are in sole power and, after being so for only 18 months, your feeling is that they can just flout that or cunningly countermand it!
On the other side, there is - as far as I know - no legislation whatsoever on the frequency of referenda in the UK. It is now 26 months since the Scottish Independence referendum, yet Tories constantly whine every time Nicola Sturgeon suggests there ought, perhaps, to be another one.
If Tories can go for a rapid follow-up General Election, why should the Scottish First Minister be howled down by THEM for a new decision after a longer period of time?
Naomi quote: "I’d be happy for Theresa May to call an election." Really? Despite the fact that - under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - there is a law against that put in place by the Tory-led coalition five years ago? Now they are in sole power and, after being so for only 18 months, your feeling is that they can just flout that or cunningly countermand it!
On the other side, there is - as far as I know - no legislation whatsoever on the frequency of referenda in the UK. It is now 26 months since the Scottish Independence referendum, yet Tories constantly whine every time Nicola Sturgeon suggests there ought, perhaps, to be another one.
If Tories can go for a rapid follow-up General Election, why should the Scottish First Minister be howled down by THEM for a new decision after a longer period of time?
Quizmonster, // under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - there is a law against that put in place by the Tory-led coalition five years ago?//
In that case there is little point in anyone whinging about an unelected leader or in you comparing the current unelected leadership to Gordon Brown’s unelected leadership.
//Tories constantly whine every time Nicola Sturgeon suggests there ought [to be another referendum on Scottish independence].
I don’t whine. I’d like them to get on with it.
In that case there is little point in anyone whinging about an unelected leader or in you comparing the current unelected leadership to Gordon Brown’s unelected leadership.
//Tories constantly whine every time Nicola Sturgeon suggests there ought [to be another referendum on Scottish independence].
I don’t whine. I’d like them to get on with it.
Latest Posts
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News0 min ago
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Shopping & Style5 mins ago
