1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News0 min 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
EDDIE5, // I fail to see why you and others insist it is binding!//
I presume you’re including Mrs May with ‘the others’? She said this morning // "It was MPs who overwhelmingly decided to put the decision in their [the people’s] hands. The result was clear. It was legitimate."//
MPs have voted and therefore the required parliamentary procedures have been followed. I have no issue with the judges’ conclusions. Whether or not the full facts are presented, they can only consider the case before them.
I presume you’re including Mrs May with ‘the others’? She said this morning // "It was MPs who overwhelmingly decided to put the decision in their [the people’s] hands. The result was clear. It was legitimate."//
MPs have voted and therefore the required parliamentary procedures have been followed. I have no issue with the judges’ conclusions. Whether or not the full facts are presented, they can only consider the case before them.
///This is your decision. The Government will implement what
you decide/// . . . .(page 20 of 23)
The things people say when they think they're on a Winner eh!
https:/
I can certainly accept that the public would not have been aware of this before. I know I wasn't. I became a constitutional expert, such as I am, on Thursday morning. But the information was available, if anyone had looked, to indicate that this result was only morally binding and not enough in law to allow Brexit to go ahead.
In a separate thread I highlighted a passage from the judgement that, essentially, amounts to refuting any claim that the referendum act provided sufficient basis to trigger Article 50. The government accepted that it does not (and will have to do the same again in courts, even if none of them seem willing to say so on national TV). There's another revealing passage in the judgement that shows the problem:
"Judges know nothing of any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament..."
which is to say, again, that we can all accept that the referendum result binds Parliament morally to triggering article 50, but legally this has no force unless explicitly stated otherwise in an Act of Parliament. In paragraph 106, the judgement states correctly that "no such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act."
So what else is there to say? The decision is correct, the build-up to it was a shambles, the appeal is pointless, and Parliament will have to get on with it not just government. But, returning to the original post, the judges are hardly "enemies of the people" for making this decision. It's outrageous to say so, and I hope that people on all sides can recognise the truth of this -- and, that it is essential to respect the rule of law in this country.
In a separate thread I highlighted a passage from the judgement that, essentially, amounts to refuting any claim that the referendum act provided sufficient basis to trigger Article 50. The government accepted that it does not (and will have to do the same again in courts, even if none of them seem willing to say so on national TV). There's another revealing passage in the judgement that shows the problem:
"Judges know nothing of any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament..."
which is to say, again, that we can all accept that the referendum result binds Parliament morally to triggering article 50, but legally this has no force unless explicitly stated otherwise in an Act of Parliament. In paragraph 106, the judgement states correctly that "no such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act."
So what else is there to say? The decision is correct, the build-up to it was a shambles, the appeal is pointless, and Parliament will have to get on with it not just government. But, returning to the original post, the judges are hardly "enemies of the people" for making this decision. It's outrageous to say so, and I hope that people on all sides can recognise the truth of this -- and, that it is essential to respect the rule of law in this country.
Corby I am sure you are not so daft as to believe that the government having lost the referendum would go on to say ''We will not implement this as it is not what we want'' You are just pointing out the obvious.
Theresa May was registered as supporting 'Remain' on the 22nd of June but suddenly she has turned into the 'ultimate Leave' campaigner now she has unexpectedly found herself PM ! She has also done a full U turn on the 3rd runway for Heathrow which she earlier described as 'Fatally flawed' and 'disastrous' ! I just wish she had the courage to stand up for her convictions! Rather than 'jumping ship' the second it suits her!
I just hope she makes the mistake of calling an early election as it may backfire on her, I can see her losing her seat.
Theresa May was registered as supporting 'Remain' on the 22nd of June but suddenly she has turned into the 'ultimate Leave' campaigner now she has unexpectedly found herself PM ! She has also done a full U turn on the 3rd runway for Heathrow which she earlier described as 'Fatally flawed' and 'disastrous' ! I just wish she had the courage to stand up for her convictions! Rather than 'jumping ship' the second it suits her!
I just hope she makes the mistake of calling an early election as it may backfire on her, I can see her losing her seat.
^^ I think otherwise. I can't see May's constituents being too pleased that as soon as she was PM she abandoned her previous pledge to totally oppose the 3rd runway at Heathrow ( Her constituency is very near Heathrow and will be badly affected by the expansion ) and is now in favor of it.
Also her constituency voted overwhelmingly to Remain in the EU and as late as 23rd June she was a 'Remain' supporter. Now she is leading the campaine to get out and probably out of the EEA as well. She has done a U turn on two of her constituents most significant problems and they could take revenge at the polling stations !
Also her constituency voted overwhelmingly to Remain in the EU and as late as 23rd June she was a 'Remain' supporter. Now she is leading the campaine to get out and probably out of the EEA as well. She has done a U turn on two of her constituents most significant problems and they could take revenge at the polling stations !
At the 2015 election, May got 35,000 votes, and her nearest competitor got 6,000. For all practical purposes, that's what's known as a "safe" seat. I can envisage the majority being cut a bit, but that would be a swing to end all swings right there, possibly even more remarkable than Labour's collapse in Scotland last year.
I thought the issue was far more simple.
As I read it the Royal Prerogative can be used to make laws but cannot undo laws passed by parliament.
If so the judgement is correct and the solution for the government is to introduce a one-clause Bill to the effect that: The EEC Act (1972) and all subsequent legislation derived therefrom is hereby repealed in entirety.
As I read it the Royal Prerogative can be used to make laws but cannot undo laws passed by parliament.
If so the judgement is correct and the solution for the government is to introduce a one-clause Bill to the effect that: The EEC Act (1972) and all subsequent legislation derived therefrom is hereby repealed in entirety.
jay dee
Nope
Denning discussed this over .... entry to the common market (!) 1973
and mused ( for he was one for musing ) what the effect of repealing the Independence of India Act might be fr' instance
would it ( hem hem. he wondered ) restore the status quo ante - to wit
India was part of the british empire again
he thought not
so there were certain things he went on to muse further ( I havent looked it up as no one on AB reads the relevant URLz anyway - hands up those who have read the Brexit judgement last week - one - me - I thought so ...) that certain things ( and acts of parliament ) had the quality of arrows being shot and could not be called back ....
( he thought the same about knighthoods and Sir Anthony Blunt
but now you will be relieved to know that knighthoods are now granted, appointed. dubbed on condition they can be clawed back)
but remember I am not a constitutional expert like NewJudge is
Nope
Denning discussed this over .... entry to the common market (!) 1973
and mused ( for he was one for musing ) what the effect of repealing the Independence of India Act might be fr' instance
would it ( hem hem. he wondered ) restore the status quo ante - to wit
India was part of the british empire again
he thought not
so there were certain things he went on to muse further ( I havent looked it up as no one on AB reads the relevant URLz anyway - hands up those who have read the Brexit judgement last week - one - me - I thought so ...) that certain things ( and acts of parliament ) had the quality of arrows being shot and could not be called back ....
( he thought the same about knighthoods and Sir Anthony Blunt
but now you will be relieved to know that knighthoods are now granted, appointed. dubbed on condition they can be clawed back)
but remember I am not a constitutional expert like NewJudge is
"...but remember I am not a constitutional expert like NewJudge is.."
"I don't know anybody (yourself apart) who has claimed to be an expert on constitutional law."
Quite so. I have never claimed to be such, Peter. On the contrary, throughout this question I have not questioned the judgement and, having read it in full, I went so far as to say I doubt it will be overturned on appeal. I have simply commented on the fact that that the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" should not see his expressed wishes delayed or jeopardised by this constitutional morass. It could and should have been established before the referendum how the decison to leave (which was, after all, a possibility) would be enacted.
My other comment is on the motives of those who brought the action. I say that they are dishonest when they say they only did it to see Pariamantary democracy hold sway. I believe, having examined their credentials, that they did so because they have considerable personal vested interests in seeing the UK remain in the EU and it is those interests that drove their action. I have no problem with that but there is no need for them to tell lies.
Hope that clarifies things.
"I don't know anybody (yourself apart) who has claimed to be an expert on constitutional law."
Quite so. I have never claimed to be such, Peter. On the contrary, throughout this question I have not questioned the judgement and, having read it in full, I went so far as to say I doubt it will be overturned on appeal. I have simply commented on the fact that that the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" should not see his expressed wishes delayed or jeopardised by this constitutional morass. It could and should have been established before the referendum how the decison to leave (which was, after all, a possibility) would be enacted.
My other comment is on the motives of those who brought the action. I say that they are dishonest when they say they only did it to see Pariamantary democracy hold sway. I believe, having examined their credentials, that they did so because they have considerable personal vested interests in seeing the UK remain in the EU and it is those interests that drove their action. I have no problem with that but there is no need for them to tell lies.
Hope that clarifies things.
