Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
don4l said:
Zod said:
ritten constitutions still need to be interpreted judicially. That is why countries with written constitutions have constitutional courts.
I agree with you about the Fixed Term Parliaments Act though. I've been against it since day one.
Most written constitutions in democracies put the will of the people above the will of parliaments.I agree with you about the Fixed Term Parliaments Act though. I've been against it since day one.
Up to this point I didn't question the Fixed Term Act, however if the referendum result gets overturned, then an election would be necessary to prevent civil unrest.
I think it would do you good to read the judgement. It's only 32 pages.
Sylvaforever said:
Zod said:
ritten constitutions still need to be interpreted judicially. That is why countries with written constitutions have constitutional courts.
I agree with you about the Fixed Term Parliaments Act though. I've been against it since day one.
having read through the judgement it really doesn't say much of substance except point out Cameron WAS a moron after all.. .I agree with you about the Fixed Term Parliaments Act though. I've been against it since day one.
(I don't disagree - he should never have held a referendum on such terms - but I can't se it in the judgment)
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
CaptainSlow said:
JawKnee said:
CaptainSlow said:
JawKnee said:
There isn't the appetite there was 6 months ago after seeing the bad things which have happened as a result of the vote.
Classic. Can you please detail what bad things have happened? (Apple iPads going up isn't a bad thing)The "experts" stated we'd be in recession by now.
Companies making plans to leave
Hate crime increases
The Government having to make sweetheart deals to big business
It has been shocking so far and there is only more to come. A lot of people are nowhere near as enthusiastic about Brexit as they were in the summer. They wanted to stick two fingers up to the establishment which they did but once the hard realities set in they lose a lot of faith. Remain would win hands down if there was another vote.
Given another vote Leave would have a greater margin.
Esseesse said:
I recall a poll not long after the referendum showing those who regretted their vote at about 4%. But the number that regretted their vote was slightly higher among remainers than leavers.
There's a simple answer to that - people generally don't like being on the losing side 
I can't be 100% but this thread is definitely testament to that
Previous generation rightwing loon:
"Our system, which has been copied all over the world, is one of representative Government under which those who have not time to look into every detail of this or that Bill choose people who are honourable and with whose opinions they are in harmony to discuss these matters. That has been our system of Government for many years, representative Government in which the representatives consider and discuss all the points in detail. In a popular vote, the voter expresses an individual opinion. In a representative institution, the representative would be expected to consider the interests of minorities and see how the separate measure fitted into the whole. I believe that if we have a referendum system, minorities would not receive anything like such a fair deal as they have under the existing system."
Go on, google who said that.
"Our system, which has been copied all over the world, is one of representative Government under which those who have not time to look into every detail of this or that Bill choose people who are honourable and with whose opinions they are in harmony to discuss these matters. That has been our system of Government for many years, representative Government in which the representatives consider and discuss all the points in detail. In a popular vote, the voter expresses an individual opinion. In a representative institution, the representative would be expected to consider the interests of minorities and see how the separate measure fitted into the whole. I believe that if we have a referendum system, minorities would not receive anything like such a fair deal as they have under the existing system."
Go on, google who said that.
Well, UKIP are not happy:. Gerard Batten (no, me neither) says, "This judgement is a political decision by part of the establishment that wants to thwart the will of the British people in the Referendum."
Gerard Batten said:
“Part of the reasoning of the Court is that triggering Article 50 “will inevitably effect the changing of domestic law”. However, this is precisely the argument for why they cannot make this ruling. Treaties are merely agreements between governments. The courts cannot rule on them until they become part of domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament.
All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first. Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application.
This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgement clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty.
Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction."
He should have read the judgment first. Then he might at least have found a clever, sympathetic lawyer to help him put an argument that had not already been found to be wrong by the court, but instead make an argument as to why the judgment is incorrect.All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first. Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application.
This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgement clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty.
Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction."
cirian75 said:
Yes, tomorrow's front pages will be epic.
I wonder who will over step the line the most?
The comments on this page of today's online Sun are, well, perhaps not as thoughtful as one might wish for. I wonder who will over step the line the most?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2108730/who-is-gina-...
don4l said:
Up to this point I didn't question the Fixed Term Act, however if the referendum result gets overturned, then an election would be necessary to prevent civil unrest.
Why is this any different to you saying people who voted remain need to suck it up and move on? Same thing applies.Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
don4l said:
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
I voted leave, but I have to be honest and say I'd vote remain if asked again.
So, why did you vote Leave and what has changed?The only one who "jumped ship" was Cameron. The rest were all pushed.
blindswelledrat said:
Norfolkit said:
CaptainSlow said:
The day Parliament block Article 50 is the day democracy truely dies in the UK.
Agree with that 100%,More importantly I suspect so does Theresa May and she's made of much sterner stuff than "quitter" Cameron.
(That's my opinion, I'm not a High Court Judge)
From the Guardian. Copy pasted as it's on their rolling feed and I can't link to it.
Jolyon Maugham, the barrister and legal writer, says in a Financial Times article that if the government loses its appeal, Theresa May will not be able to trigger article 50 by the end of March as she hopes.
"Imagine this. It is November 2018. The promised trade deals have failed to appear. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise. The public mood towards Brexit has turned ugly, and so have negotiations with our biggest and nearest trading partner. In that world, any rational MP would wish that, back in November 2016, she had left ajar the door to remaining in the EU. Why make the decision now, with modest evidence, if you have the opportunity to make it later with more?
These points will be debated in the Commons and they must also be debated in the Lords.
And, in practical terms, it is difficult to contemplate that these steps – drafting a Bill, debating it in the Commons, voting on amendments, placing it before the House of Lords and then addressing amendments introduced by the Upper Chamber in the Commons again – can sensibly be taken after the result of the Supreme Court appeal is known but before March.
So, whatever else the decision means, unless the Supreme Court overturns the High Court’s decision, Theresa May’s March deadline will be ancient history."
So essentially, give yourself options, enshrined in law...
Jolyon Maugham, the barrister and legal writer, says in a Financial Times article that if the government loses its appeal, Theresa May will not be able to trigger article 50 by the end of March as she hopes.
"Imagine this. It is November 2018. The promised trade deals have failed to appear. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise. The public mood towards Brexit has turned ugly, and so have negotiations with our biggest and nearest trading partner. In that world, any rational MP would wish that, back in November 2016, she had left ajar the door to remaining in the EU. Why make the decision now, with modest evidence, if you have the opportunity to make it later with more?
These points will be debated in the Commons and they must also be debated in the Lords.
And, in practical terms, it is difficult to contemplate that these steps – drafting a Bill, debating it in the Commons, voting on amendments, placing it before the House of Lords and then addressing amendments introduced by the Upper Chamber in the Commons again – can sensibly be taken after the result of the Supreme Court appeal is known but before March.
So, whatever else the decision means, unless the Supreme Court overturns the High Court’s decision, Theresa May’s March deadline will be ancient history."
So essentially, give yourself options, enshrined in law...
vonuber said:
don4l said:
Up to this point I didn't question the Fixed Term Act, however if the referendum result gets overturned, then an election would be necessary to prevent civil unrest.
Why is this any different to you saying people who voted remain need to suck it up and move on? Same thing applies.Tomorrow's another day though...
The decision is what it is. In order to Leave we have to do it legally, and if this court case is part of that, so be it. Going to be interesting, there are going to be a lot of MPs with some individually tough decisions. If they vote not the declare Art50 there will be a crisis of confidence in the system by some, others will have more confidence. I don't see any moves by certain quarters towards even attempting any healing this fractured nation.
Article 50 is not going to happen. She never wanted it to happen, she was a strong Remain supporter. They will drag it out until Labor inevitably gets voted back in and hands us back to the EU with even less rights than we had before.
The UK as we know it is finished, this whole debacle has proved we have ZERO power, and that even when our public vote to leave the EU, we can't, because our Goverment won't allow it. End of democracy.
I wonder what would happen if the EU said something like "There are to be no further elections in the UK. Labor stays in period". As we have no power, what could we do about it exactly?
The UK as we know it is finished, this whole debacle has proved we have ZERO power, and that even when our public vote to leave the EU, we can't, because our Goverment won't allow it. End of democracy.
I wonder what would happen if the EU said something like "There are to be no further elections in the UK. Labor stays in period". As we have no power, what could we do about it exactly?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff