Sheffield Children's Hospital C/D...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Enemies Of The People? I'd Say So.
172 Answers
http://
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.
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.
Answers
Jim, I’m not trying to subvert anything. The people who brought this before the courts are doing that. Pretty much convinced of a ‘Remain’ result, Parliament elected, in not insubstantia
12:03 Sat 05th Nov 2016
//all the government has to do is to introduce a bill to Parliament which gives the government permission to invoke A50//
sounds fair enough. but all the remainers have to do is infest it with all manner of unacceptable amendments, and it'll keep the matter in parliament for years, maybe until a corbyn administration could kill it for good.
sounds fair enough. but all the remainers have to do is infest it with all manner of unacceptable amendments, and it'll keep the matter in parliament for years, maybe until a corbyn administration could kill it for good.
Mikey, at 13:46, // Corby...stop it...you will only confuse him even more ( ! )//
And you departed this thread earlier because you said it was getting childish!
THECORBYLOON at 13:45, you’re making an argument out of nothing and it detracts from the discussion. The majority of people who put their cross on a ballot paper voted to leave.
And you departed this thread earlier because you said it was getting childish!
THECORBYLOON at 13:45, you’re making an argument out of nothing and it detracts from the discussion. The majority of people who put their cross on a ballot paper voted to leave.
//but all the remainers have to do is infest it with all manner of unacceptable amendments, and it'll keep the matter in parliament for years//
Then maybe manufacture a vote of no confidence in the government in order to trigger a general election. All the Tories (under whip) would vote for the motion "We the House have no confidence in...", and the other members according to their lights.
Then maybe manufacture a vote of no confidence in the government in order to trigger a general election. All the Tories (under whip) would vote for the motion "We the House have no confidence in...", and the other members according to their lights.
TTT, you are not making sense. No deal, you are fine with that but what happens to EU citizens in the UK and what happens to UK citizens in the rest of Europe, is it a free for all? Are all EU citizens in the UK suddenly here unlawfully and subject to deportation? Would the same to UK citizens in Europe?
THECORBYLOON, //Are all EU citizens in the UK suddenly here unlawfully and subject to deportation? Would the same to UK citizens in Europe? //
Doubt it. People from Europe have always come here to live and work - and people from the these shores have always gone to Europe to live and work. Contrary to the Remainers' fears and fear-mongering, the world as we know it isn't about to end.
Doubt it. People from Europe have always come here to live and work - and people from the these shores have always gone to Europe to live and work. Contrary to the Remainers' fears and fear-mongering, the world as we know it isn't about to end.
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. ///
I have rescued this post from the depths of this thread, because after reading all the posts I think that this was the best answer.
The referendum took place almost 6 months ago, and before it took place and since, no mention was made about the possibility of any laws being broken.
Where were the 'legal beavers' both of the government and those independent to the government, in all that time?
Yes TTG, something does seem dodgy.
/// 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. ///
I have rescued this post from the depths of this thread, because after reading all the posts I think that this was the best answer.
The referendum took place almost 6 months ago, and before it took place and since, no mention was made about the possibility of any laws being broken.
Where were the 'legal beavers' both of the government and those independent to the government, in all that time?
Yes TTG, something does seem dodgy.
“NJ....I am somewhat surprised that you, of all people, should not be siding with the law in this case.”
If you read my post, Mikey, you will find I made no comment on the judgement whatsoever, other than to say that I doubted it will be overturned in the Supreme Court. Much could, and should have been done before the referendum to ensure these problems didn’t arise. But we are where we are. What I’m suggesting is that the government now needs to get on and comply with the judgement by putting a Bill before the Commons for approval to invoke A50. That’s all that’s needed. There is no need to get involved in the terms of our leaving because they can only be discussed with the EU after A50 has been triggered. In any case, as I explained in my first post, whether or not MPs agree with the terms of any deal is neither here nor there. The issue is being made unnecessarily complex by suggesting that the triggering of A50 is conditional upon our leaving deal being acceptable. It is not.
“As regards to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, might I remind you that the Bill was brought in and agreed upon, by the Tory Government of 2010 to 2015.
Or, if any of our pedants are still on here, the Tory Majority so-called Coalition regime of 2010-2015.”
I am among those pedants (or more properly, one who is prepared to examine the facts). The Act was introduced by the Coalition and formed part of the Coalition Agreement. It was among the terms Mr Clegg insisted on in return for his party’s support of the Tories. He wanted to make sure that Mr Cameron did not, as he should have done, go to the country a few months later and it allowed him (Clegg) to hang on to the spare keys to No 10 for a guaranteed five years. I am not only just criticising it in the last few days. I have criticised it consistently ever since it was passed. It would never even have been considered by the Tory Party had they been governing alone and not just for Party Political reasons. This current problem demonstrates quite clearly that an obstruction has been placed in the way of government to get things done. It is clear that if an impasse is reached then the Prime Minister must go to the country to receive a fresh mandate (though quite why this should be so is arguable, but once again, we are where we are). The Act, in my view, has no place in the UK’s constitution.
“…sounds fair enough. but all the remainers have to do is infest it with all manner of unacceptable amendments,…”
I have read somewhere over the past few days that a Bill can be put before the Commons for which no amendments will be considered. (I’m not 100% sure on this). If so, that would be the obvious solution.
“What happens after Brexit, will those already here maintain that right? Will British folk in Europe have the right to remain?”
It would be a matter for the UK to discuss with the 27 nations (either individually or, if true to form, the EU insists on negotiating on their behalf). Until those negotiations are concluded the status quo remains (i.e. nobody is chucked out either way). If obfuscation prevails from the EU then we make our own rules unilaterally (as “normal” countries do). It’s really not that difficult (provided the will is there).
What MPs opposing an immediate and unconditional withdrawal seem to fail to grasp is that the Commons voted six to one to grant a referendum and the electorate was told, in writing, that its outcome would be enacted by the government. No provisors, no conditions. But that, of course, was before the result was known when almost everybody who mattered (including most MPs) believed that a "Leave" vote was more than the electorate would dare to cast.
If you read my post, Mikey, you will find I made no comment on the judgement whatsoever, other than to say that I doubted it will be overturned in the Supreme Court. Much could, and should have been done before the referendum to ensure these problems didn’t arise. But we are where we are. What I’m suggesting is that the government now needs to get on and comply with the judgement by putting a Bill before the Commons for approval to invoke A50. That’s all that’s needed. There is no need to get involved in the terms of our leaving because they can only be discussed with the EU after A50 has been triggered. In any case, as I explained in my first post, whether or not MPs agree with the terms of any deal is neither here nor there. The issue is being made unnecessarily complex by suggesting that the triggering of A50 is conditional upon our leaving deal being acceptable. It is not.
“As regards to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, might I remind you that the Bill was brought in and agreed upon, by the Tory Government of 2010 to 2015.
Or, if any of our pedants are still on here, the Tory Majority so-called Coalition regime of 2010-2015.”
I am among those pedants (or more properly, one who is prepared to examine the facts). The Act was introduced by the Coalition and formed part of the Coalition Agreement. It was among the terms Mr Clegg insisted on in return for his party’s support of the Tories. He wanted to make sure that Mr Cameron did not, as he should have done, go to the country a few months later and it allowed him (Clegg) to hang on to the spare keys to No 10 for a guaranteed five years. I am not only just criticising it in the last few days. I have criticised it consistently ever since it was passed. It would never even have been considered by the Tory Party had they been governing alone and not just for Party Political reasons. This current problem demonstrates quite clearly that an obstruction has been placed in the way of government to get things done. It is clear that if an impasse is reached then the Prime Minister must go to the country to receive a fresh mandate (though quite why this should be so is arguable, but once again, we are where we are). The Act, in my view, has no place in the UK’s constitution.
“…sounds fair enough. but all the remainers have to do is infest it with all manner of unacceptable amendments,…”
I have read somewhere over the past few days that a Bill can be put before the Commons for which no amendments will be considered. (I’m not 100% sure on this). If so, that would be the obvious solution.
“What happens after Brexit, will those already here maintain that right? Will British folk in Europe have the right to remain?”
It would be a matter for the UK to discuss with the 27 nations (either individually or, if true to form, the EU insists on negotiating on their behalf). Until those negotiations are concluded the status quo remains (i.e. nobody is chucked out either way). If obfuscation prevails from the EU then we make our own rules unilaterally (as “normal” countries do). It’s really not that difficult (provided the will is there).
What MPs opposing an immediate and unconditional withdrawal seem to fail to grasp is that the Commons voted six to one to grant a referendum and the electorate was told, in writing, that its outcome would be enacted by the government. No provisors, no conditions. But that, of course, was before the result was known when almost everybody who mattered (including most MPs) believed that a "Leave" vote was more than the electorate would dare to cast.
NJ, the UK government may act unilaterally when it comes to negotiations but if the terms it introduces are believed to be unfair, descriminatory or unlawful, would you not expect the courts to become involved?
I too read something about a particular type of legislation in which the Lords would have no part to play but I can't think where I seen it.
I too read something about a particular type of legislation in which the Lords would have no part to play but I can't think where I seen it.
// I have read somewhere over the past few days that a Bill can be put before the Commons for which no amendments will be considered. (I’m not 100% sure on this). If so, that would be the obvious solution. //
not sure if we have any constitutional lawyers here
Maastricht treaty - the MPs put down amendments - an 'and' in clause 29b and a 'possible' but not a 'normal' some other place
and Major pointed out that a treaty is a treaty and you cant woggle with it
Could be new - a bill without amendments but the politicians would use it for every bill wouldnt they?
it also makes the phrase "ministers plenipotentiary" a nonsense.
( 3T will scream "ministers whatty-wa-watchery, wot dey den? anyay den." They are the people sent abroad to negotiate treaties and come back with an all-or-none product ( erm the treaty )
The one that stays in the commons and doesnt go to the Lords is a 'motion'
Famous examples are Dunning's Motion 1780 - "The Kings power has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished" - but since it doesnt go to the Lords it aint a law ( er it stays a motion and has no legal effect ) - and that may admit no amendments ( because it stays a load of shop anyway)
a recent one is the motion to deprive Sir Philip Green of his sir-ship. Motion passed or carried or whatever the great and good do to motions in the commons
well no or yes
I agree wid de president of the Law Society.
He shouldnt be sticking up for the judges when they do their job
the bliddy Lord Chancellor one Amber Rudd should .....
she who remains remarkably silent
good case for restoring the Lord Chancellor to his former powers and glory....
not sure if we have any constitutional lawyers here
Maastricht treaty - the MPs put down amendments - an 'and' in clause 29b and a 'possible' but not a 'normal' some other place
and Major pointed out that a treaty is a treaty and you cant woggle with it
Could be new - a bill without amendments but the politicians would use it for every bill wouldnt they?
it also makes the phrase "ministers plenipotentiary" a nonsense.
( 3T will scream "ministers whatty-wa-watchery, wot dey den? anyay den." They are the people sent abroad to negotiate treaties and come back with an all-or-none product ( erm the treaty )
The one that stays in the commons and doesnt go to the Lords is a 'motion'
Famous examples are Dunning's Motion 1780 - "The Kings power has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished" - but since it doesnt go to the Lords it aint a law ( er it stays a motion and has no legal effect ) - and that may admit no amendments ( because it stays a load of shop anyway)
a recent one is the motion to deprive Sir Philip Green of his sir-ship. Motion passed or carried or whatever the great and good do to motions in the commons
well no or yes
I agree wid de president of the Law Society.
He shouldnt be sticking up for the judges when they do their job
the bliddy Lord Chancellor one Amber Rudd should .....
she who remains remarkably silent
good case for restoring the Lord Chancellor to his former powers and glory....
// The Parliament Act is invoked if the Lords delay legislation in specific scenarios.//
erm no the parliament act 1949 is invoked to convert a house of lords rejection into a delay of one year
the 1949 act was passed under a predecessor of the act that says the Lords cannot reject a bill - and yes the Lords did not accept the 1949 Parliament bill and it was passed anyway under predecessor powers.
Its validity was quesioned a few years ago and hey guess what ? the Lords found it to be valid.
used only once in the War Crimes Bill - Major again
The law lords in the Lords were very against making crimes retroactive - in this case war crimes - and persuaded their colleagues to give it a miss
But hey we had that on AB a few weeks ago !
erm no the parliament act 1949 is invoked to convert a house of lords rejection into a delay of one year
the 1949 act was passed under a predecessor of the act that says the Lords cannot reject a bill - and yes the Lords did not accept the 1949 Parliament bill and it was passed anyway under predecessor powers.
Its validity was quesioned a few years ago and hey guess what ? the Lords found it to be valid.
used only once in the War Crimes Bill - Major again
The law lords in the Lords were very against making crimes retroactive - in this case war crimes - and persuaded their colleagues to give it a miss
But hey we had that on AB a few weeks ago !
Can someone explain to me...please.....why wasn't this all planned out stating what happens if vote is exit and the rigmarole we would have to go thru.
Secondly, if the vote came in to remain.....could that have been challenged and brought up to have another referendum?
I am trying to simplify matters for me old brain here.......there was a vote....yay or nay.... Why the heck is the outcome not done and dusted with the clear vote that was cast....would we have had all this excrement if it had gone remain?
Secondly, if the vote came in to remain.....could that have been challenged and brought up to have another referendum?
I am trying to simplify matters for me old brain here.......there was a vote....yay or nay.... Why the heck is the outcome not done and dusted with the clear vote that was cast....would we have had all this excrement if it had gone remain?
Farage I seem to remember saying that if the result was close in favour of Remaon then there could be another referendum. That's been conveniently forgotten. Otherwise, I'm not sure how it can be explained sufficiently simply for some people that this ruling by the judges is NOT against the result of the referendum
