Enemies Of The People? I'd Say So.

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37882082
Don't these pro EU Liberal judges realise what they have done? Perhaps if they came down out of their ivory towers occasionally and visited their country they'd realise the fury they have caused.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Does anybody have the wording of the Referendum Bill which was approved by Parliament?
Does anyone have the judges' summary when they made their ruling?

PS: Aristides the Just was a contemporary of Themistocles [oo ee den wot].

[fiction-factory]

I can't see why any blame should be attached to the judges unless it can be established that they have misinterpreted the law, but that wouldn'y make them enemies of the people unless they had deliberately made an error of judgement.

Any sour grape complaints should be directed at the litigants (although technically they were doing us a favour by reminding us that governments can't override the constitution), or at those who didn't word the referendum correctly or change the constitution beforehand or at those who tried to avoid teh Parliamentary vote knowing what the constitution says.

[mushroom25]

V_E, full judgment is here:-
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

link to the enacted legislation is here:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

[mikey4444]

VE....I have found this, and will continue looking for the actual wording of the judgement ::::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983

[mikey4444]

From my link above :::

"Was the referendum result mandatory or advisory?
The EU referendum was advisory - as was discussed in the court ruling on Thursday"

"The High Court ruling effectively defined the limits of government power by reiterating that Parliament is sovereign - it can create laws and only Parliament can take them away"

[mikey4444]

Thanks Mush....( 11:10 )...you got there before me !

[vetuste_ennemi]

Thanks Mushroom and Mikey.

[fiction-factory]

I think it's best to put any sour grapes on ice until the outcome of any appeal is known If there is a successful appeal then the gov can just get on with it. My guess is an appeal will fail or the government won't appeal, but hopefully then it will get approved by a majority of MPs so we can move on.

[mikey4444]

TTT....so to answer your question directly....

I would say not....the High Court is far from the enemy of the people.....this ruling shows that they are protecting the rights of Parliament, so are our protectors, not enemies !

[ToraToraTora]

yes yada yada jim yada consultative, yada mikey yada, rocket science yada yada! We all know it was consultative technically but tell me in your own words why you think it could be ignored and not cause a meltdown.

[jim360]

I've read the judges' ruling in full vetuste -- although I can't say I necessarily understand the entirety of the argument, being a non-expert in legal matters. It is available here, for anyone who wants a look:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

Essentially though, the point is that withdrawal from the EU would fundamentally affect the rights of British citizens, and to carry out such a change is not within the powers of the Crown (ie, the Prime Minister and her cabinet) without express permission of Parliament; since, in turn, these rights were granted by passing an Act of Parliament (European Communities Act 1972); and only Parliament can undo its own decisions.

The judges take great pains to stress that this is about the legal issues surrounding the referendum decision, not the decision itself. The issue doesn't exactly arise in the other direction, as of course a Remain vote would mean that nothing in law needed to be changed.

Incidentally, the question of whether or not the 2015 Referendum Act gave the Crown this power was answered in the negative by David Davis himself: it simply isn't the case that the referendum had any legal power, or handed any authority to the government to exercise the decision, as stated in paragraph 105 of the above document: "[David Davis, the Secretary of State] does not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50."

[jim360]

TTT -- why should I have to repeat what I have already said? But just because only one decision can be made in practice doesn't mean that the exercise shouldn't also go ahead anyway. Parliament should vote to respect the result of the June referendum -- but they should still be able to vote on it.

[fiction-factory]

It's the MPs you need to persuade, TTT, for when they have a vote. The law seems clear to me and the judges have upheld that.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I'll grant you Naomi that there is a chance that Parliament will reject it.//

You know very well they’ll reject it. That’s the why matter was brought before the courts in the first place – by disingenuous people who have no regard for democracy - unless the outcome of it suits their purpose. This whole thing stinks. Quite shameful.

[mikey4444]

TTT...I am not saying that it should be ignored, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I am on record here, as saying that the result of the Referendum cannot be changed. I fully accept that a majority voted to LEAVE. So, no sour grapes from me.

What this ruling does say, however, is that the manner of our leaving should be debated by Parliament, in the same way as our entry was debated. Parliament is sovereign and that is what the Judges ruling is all about, not whether we should be in the EU or not.

[jim360]

I know nothing of the sort. But all the same, you are again left with the problem that you are trying to subvert the way democracy works in this country, as well as showing no respect for centuries of constitutional law. Which is more shameful, I wonder?

[mikey4444]

Jim....I would give up if I were you !

[ichkeria]

And, good God, man - one of them was OPENLY gay!

And one looks a bit Polish, to my eye :-)

[ichkeria]

The problem is mikey that there is a large group of people who think "Leaving the EU" simply means walking out the door immediately, stopping immigration, having different colour passports, playing God Save the Queen on the BBC every night, and generally just, well, ,getting our own country back. To such fundamentalists any hint of a debate or a delay is seen as something akin to a war crime.
I'll be quite honest: I don't want us to leave, and I would do everything in my power to stop it, as I think leaving is illogical and disastrous. But accept that politically it would be suicidal for politicians to be honest enough to admit it, in the same way that no poliotican was honest enough to admit that having a referendum in this fashion in the first place was inappropriate.
I therefore can't see very many voting against it.
But many people who voted "Leave" favoured staying in the single market, for example, so there is no popular mandate for not doing so that we can be sure of.

[TTG]

Seems to me something is dodgy about the whole thing. Until that wealthy lawyer spoke up, there was no talk of this having to go before a group of judges. There are a lot of wealthy and powerful people with interests in the UK staying part of the EU for their own person gain. Not suprised it's being delayed at every twist and turn.