Crosswords2 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
It isn't a "law" is it, as such, it's a ruling. You can't have a law for every eventuality, which is why often judges have to interpret.
The government have fallen foul of their insistence that Article 50 is irrevocable, which is a moot point anyway. And the judges have ruled that as peoples' rights are at stake then it needs to go through parliament. It would, of course, have done that anyway, but only post-the invoking of Article 50. So the government were basically admitting that parliament could not really change anything after that.
So now the govt could do an about turn on their interpretation of Article 50, but in that case they'd be a hostage to parliament further down the line
The government have fallen foul of their insistence that Article 50 is irrevocable, which is a moot point anyway. And the judges have ruled that as peoples' rights are at stake then it needs to go through parliament. It would, of course, have done that anyway, but only post-the invoking of Article 50. So the government were basically admitting that parliament could not really change anything after that.
So now the govt could do an about turn on their interpretation of Article 50, but in that case they'd be a hostage to parliament further down the line
Problem is that leave to appeal is not the same thing as saying there are any grounds for appeal in law. The government will have lodged an appeal as a matter of course, and then tried to work out whether it was worth it later.
As NJ has explained, there is little reason to expect any change in the decision by the Supreme Court. It's pretty clear-cut really. It's in Theresa May et al's interests to pretend otherwise, but that's all it is really: a pretence.
I will be very much surprised, for sure, if the appeal gets even one of the Supreme Court judges to agree with it, let alone a majority verdict.
As NJ has explained, there is little reason to expect any change in the decision by the Supreme Court. It's pretty clear-cut really. It's in Theresa May et al's interests to pretend otherwise, but that's all it is really: a pretence.
I will be very much surprised, for sure, if the appeal gets even one of the Supreme Court judges to agree with it, let alone a majority verdict.
“There are literally 1,000's of points of law affecting everything from EU arrest warrants to postal services that need to be sorted out.”
Of course there are Eddie. They have evolved over 40 years. And they will not all be resolved by the time we leave. The status quo must prevail after we have left and until they can each be sorted out. That (under the heading “too difficult to do”) is not a valid reason to delay our departure.
“o god look averbardy ! a judge that doesnt know the law !
well that's new !”
I’ve said throughout this thread, Peter, that I do not disagree with the judgement and went so far as to say I doubt it will be overturned. (However some people find it hard to understand that we can be taken to war without a vote in Parliament but cannot withdraw from the EU without one, but I digress).
My comments are directed to those who brought the action. It is the reason (they say) they brought it which I dispute. “Specious” means “apparently good or right though lacking real merit;” This describes perfectly their contention that they brought the action to see that Parliamentary democracy held sway. Nothing can be further from the truth. If you examine the credentials of the group behind the action you will see that, without exception, hey have considerable vested interests in the UK’s continued membership of the EU. They have no interest in Parliamentary democracy (other than that in this instance it may suit their needs). Their aim is to delay and eventually thwart Brexit and they will use every means at their disposal to do so. I don’t mind that provided they are honest and say so. It is their deceit that I cannot tolerate.
We really don’t need to get too bogged down and we should let the dust settle. But the simple fact is this: Parliament voted (in favour 6:1, which means a lot more than just the Tories) voted to give the electorate a referendum. Among the pro-EU propaganda, the government’s own referendum pamphlet, sent to every UK household, said this:
“The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.”
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”
Nothing could be clearer. There were no provisos, no conditions. All the claptrap about “consultative referendum only”; “soft or hard Brexit” and “Parliamentary democracy” is trumped by the above. Mr Cameron, who is on record as saying Article 50 would be triggered on 24th June, has disappeared into the sunset to pick his toys up from the floor and to count his money. Instead of producing his pamphlet he would have been better off ensuring that legislation was in place to carry out his promise (or more of a threat the way he said it) that A50 would have been four months in by now. The electorate are used to being lied to by politicians and suffering from their broken promises. However, Mrs May now has to pick up the pieces of this mess and crack on to ensure the will of the people prevails. And she should not let a handful of dishonest hedge fund managers’ wives, Brazilian hairdressers and ex-pat businessmen get in the way.
Of course there are Eddie. They have evolved over 40 years. And they will not all be resolved by the time we leave. The status quo must prevail after we have left and until they can each be sorted out. That (under the heading “too difficult to do”) is not a valid reason to delay our departure.
“o god look averbardy ! a judge that doesnt know the law !
well that's new !”
I’ve said throughout this thread, Peter, that I do not disagree with the judgement and went so far as to say I doubt it will be overturned. (However some people find it hard to understand that we can be taken to war without a vote in Parliament but cannot withdraw from the EU without one, but I digress).
My comments are directed to those who brought the action. It is the reason (they say) they brought it which I dispute. “Specious” means “apparently good or right though lacking real merit;” This describes perfectly their contention that they brought the action to see that Parliamentary democracy held sway. Nothing can be further from the truth. If you examine the credentials of the group behind the action you will see that, without exception, hey have considerable vested interests in the UK’s continued membership of the EU. They have no interest in Parliamentary democracy (other than that in this instance it may suit their needs). Their aim is to delay and eventually thwart Brexit and they will use every means at their disposal to do so. I don’t mind that provided they are honest and say so. It is their deceit that I cannot tolerate.
We really don’t need to get too bogged down and we should let the dust settle. But the simple fact is this: Parliament voted (in favour 6:1, which means a lot more than just the Tories) voted to give the electorate a referendum. Among the pro-EU propaganda, the government’s own referendum pamphlet, sent to every UK household, said this:
“The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.”
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”
Nothing could be clearer. There were no provisos, no conditions. All the claptrap about “consultative referendum only”; “soft or hard Brexit” and “Parliamentary democracy” is trumped by the above. Mr Cameron, who is on record as saying Article 50 would be triggered on 24th June, has disappeared into the sunset to pick his toys up from the floor and to count his money. Instead of producing his pamphlet he would have been better off ensuring that legislation was in place to carry out his promise (or more of a threat the way he said it) that A50 would have been four months in by now. The electorate are used to being lied to by politicians and suffering from their broken promises. However, Mrs May now has to pick up the pieces of this mess and crack on to ensure the will of the people prevails. And she should not let a handful of dishonest hedge fund managers’ wives, Brazilian hairdressers and ex-pat businessmen get in the way.
-- answer removed --
“But can I point out that there is nothing remotely "claptrap" about the consultative nature of the Ref vote in June. That is exactly what it was.”
Agreed, Mikey. The “claptrap” arises when you compare that fact with “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”
“Hang on a second, though. Are you genuinely trying to say that a government pamphlet should carry more weight in people's heads than over three centuries of constitutional law?”
It does in people’s heads, jim, because few people carry three centuries of constitutional law around with them. But as I said, I am not arguing with the ruling. I am arguing about the motives behind those who brought the case and commenting on the government’s lack of preparation for a result they believed unthinkable. Those who brought the case are dishonest; the government prior to the referendum was inept. People are entitled to believe simple statements made by their government, delivered in writing to their homes. But as I said, we need to see what happens next.
Agreed, Mikey. The “claptrap” arises when you compare that fact with “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”
“Hang on a second, though. Are you genuinely trying to say that a government pamphlet should carry more weight in people's heads than over three centuries of constitutional law?”
It does in people’s heads, jim, because few people carry three centuries of constitutional law around with them. But as I said, I am not arguing with the ruling. I am arguing about the motives behind those who brought the case and commenting on the government’s lack of preparation for a result they believed unthinkable. Those who brought the case are dishonest; the government prior to the referendum was inept. People are entitled to believe simple statements made by their government, delivered in writing to their homes. But as I said, we need to see what happens next.
Interesting this from February 2014
ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY?
http://
ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY?
http://
The thing is, though, that even while this may in part be a cynical attempt to block Brexit, that only relies on MPs' crass stupidity. But anyway the judgement is also about ensuring that rights are protected in the sense of being only changed in Parliament, not by a Royal prerogative. It seems to me well-justified to challenge a process on those grounds, whatever else the motivations were (and, as I have already outlined, a key figure in bringing this case supported Brexit anyway).
naomi here is yet another link that says the referendum was advisory only and NOT binding. I have already given you others.
http://
I fail to see why you and others insist it is binding!
If you Google 'EU Referendum , binding or advisory' you will get dozens of links that say the exact same thing , or are they all wrong?
http://
I fail to see why you and others insist it is binding!
If you Google 'EU Referendum , binding or advisory' you will get dozens of links that say the exact same thing , or are they all wrong?
Regarding the fact the vote was not binding, the leaflet issued by the Government said, "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide." Whilst there is no end of evidence that the result was not legally binding, the Government did not say that, they said they would implement the outcome.
Why would Joe Public think to check on the Internet for the actual legal standing of the outcome? The Government said they would implement the result so why should we not have believed that promise? How many folk can say they have ever heard of the Crown Prerogative let alone the limitations as to its exercise?
Why would Joe Public think to check on the Internet for the actual legal standing of the outcome? The Government said they would implement the result so why should we not have believed that promise? How many folk can say they have ever heard of the Crown Prerogative let alone the limitations as to its exercise?
