Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand 
Basically, some rich tart and a bloke in a wig have said 'never mind the Referendum result, it'll all be decided by our elected representatives in Parliament'.Am I over thinking this?
I've seen a sneak preview of the ECJ ruling...
"Nein mein Cousin des Westens, Sie sind die Lieblings-Cash-Kuh-Provinz des Reichs, jetzt müssen Sie auf den übergroßen Eutern des Mutterführers saugen. Sie sind einfach ruhig, sonst werden Sie alle an der Ostfront vor Weihnachten sein."
230TE said:
don'tbesilly said:
230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
No change Fella, A50 might get delayed whilst the elite adjust their expensive suits and line up the next money fest at tax payers expense, and after spunking millions of hard earnt (by some) up the wall, we'll still leave the EU, so no change from Vol 1.Life goes on, the bed wetting of the remainers has been put on hold for awhile, we'll give them a brief window of faux celebration as a gesture, then we'll crack on with leaving the shambles of the EU.
Hosenbugler said:
Elysium said:
Well that escalated quickly ....
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
This is a blatant attempt to usurp the referenda result, no more, no less.Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Reams of pontificating, waffle, and blatant obfuscation will not stop that fact.
In fact, the blatant use of anti democratic, autocrat forces to overturn the will of the electorate. A will endorsed by Parliament, in its granting of such consultation. Parliament asking for an answer to a question they asked of the electorate, they got it.
Get on with it, the alternative to article 50 is not good.
We all have the right to expect our Govt to operate within the law. It is our democratic right to challenge them if they do not.
The referendum result still stands and the Govt is intent on delivering it. I think they are wasting time by appealing and as Kier Starmer said they would do better to reflect on this judgement and start the process of engaging with Parliament.
Do you really expect a majority of MPs to defy the referendum vote? I don't and I voted remain.
CaptainSlow said:
I've seen a sneak preview of the ECJ ruling...
"Nein mein Cousin des Westens, Sie sind die Lieblings-Cash-Kuh-Provinz des Reichs, jetzt müssen Sie auf den übergroßen Eutern des Mutterführers saugen. Sie sind einfach ruhig, sonst werden Sie alle an der Ostfront vor Weihnachten sein."
"Nein mein Cousin des Westens, Sie sind die Lieblings-Cash-Kuh-Provinz des Reichs, jetzt müssen Sie auf den übergroßen Eutern des Mutterführers saugen. Sie sind einfach ruhig, sonst werden Sie alle an der Ostfront vor Weihnachten sein."
No my cousin of the West, you are the favorite cash cow province of the empire, now you have to suck on the overgrown udders of the mother. They are just quiet, otherwise they'll all be on the Eastern Front before Christmas.
An amusing little bit of German.
For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
Zod said:
An amusing little bit of German.
For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
Is it usual to bypass the Court of Appeal. Or is this an accelerated process to minimise the amount of soiled bed linen?For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
williamp said:
no no no. You dont understand. We need to disregard what 17 million people ay but listen to what 3 say who wear wigs and gowns. Its the Remainers way. Sod off democracy: Minority rule!
All the Govt need to do is follow the correct process. This whole Royal Prerogative plan did not exist pre-referendum and it was simply cooked up by the Govt as a short cut. They have always known that it was legally risky.So Brexit still happens - they just need to do it legally.
Elysium said:
Well that escalated quickly ....
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Interesting stuff. Adds fuel to the fire that is the idea that the Govt has in truth always wanted this to go to the Commons, but wanted to be seen to be forced to do so. And then the scrutiny/conditions that the Commons impose on Brexit will likewise be seen to be forced upon the Govt, which was always desperately trying to implement the will of the people in its purest form. Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
I am generally scathing about conspiracy theories, but from the day the Govt announced that the AG would lead the team in this case I've been feeling increasingly like I am watching a charade unfold.
I am still certain that we will invoke A50 and leave, but I think the terms of departure may end up being closer to EU membership than many Brexiteers will be comfortable with.
This would all be greatly more enjoyable if we didn't have to live through it!
desolate said:
Zod said:
An amusing little bit of German.
For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
Is it usual to bypass the Court of Appeal. Or is this an accelerated process to minimise the amount of soiled bed linen?For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
this legal challenge may look a bit suss, but if there is one thing politicians in this country do well it is observe protocol in all matters constitutional and legal. look at the vaz situation, even the recent revelations were not enough for the opposition to break with tradition and oppose his new appointment.
i personally do not have a problem with parliament debating this . if they bugger around too much it will be to the detriment of the uk and those responsible will pay at the next election.
i personally do not have a problem with parliament debating this . if they bugger around too much it will be to the detriment of the uk and those responsible will pay at the next election.
r11co said:
The opening of Vol.2 is a material change of circumstances, justifying a vote on a further breakaway thread whereby those who want to can rejoin Vol. 1 
Unfortunately Vol 1 is dead'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This vol 1 is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-vol 1!!
PS really can't wait to see what the wicked witch of the north has to say*
On a serious note* I can - I really can wait - in fact I'd like just one day where she shuts her mouth and just focused on breathing for a change
r11co said:
The opening of Vol.2 is a material change of circumstances, justifying a vote on a further breakaway thread whereby which those who want to can rejoin Vol. 1
Closer union Fella, you blinked and 'Oh s
t' there it is, too late you're snookered and caught with the others who never saw it coming and blindly carried on. Veto?
'Do one' you snoozed, you lost!don'tbesilly said:
230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
No change Fella, A50 might get delayed whilst the elite adjust their expensive suits and line up the next money fest at tax payers expense, and after spunking millions of hard earnt (by some) up the wall, we'll still leave the EU, so no change from Vol 1.Life goes on, the bed wetting of the remainers has been put on hold for awhile, we'll give them a brief window of faux celebration as a gesture, then we'll crack on with leaving the shambles of the EU.
Considering most were moaning about the uncertainty of it all.....todays events just seem to prolong the uncertainty........Brexit will mean Brexit even if it takes a while
If I am wrong? - Then I will have to stop moaning on forums and become an activist instead - even if it means spending the youngsters' inheritances in the process.
Elysium said:
williamp said:
no no no. You dont understand. We need to disregard what 17 million people ay but listen to what 3 say who wear wigs and gowns. Its the Remainers way. Sod off democracy: Minority rule!
All the Govt need to do is follow the correct process. This whole Royal Prerogative plan did not exist pre-referendum and it was simply cooked up by the Govt as a short cut. They have always known that it was legally risky.So Brexit still happens - they just need to do it legally.
I'm content to wait and watch this process unfold, but I'm interested to know whether the UK Government deliberately mislead the public in the leaflet where they promised to implement the result or whether Cameron and others were ignorant of the law.
This should be basic stuff. Cameron said he would enact Article 50 following the vote, now we're told it would always have to be with the approval of a majority in the House of Commons. Why was this not made clear?
I can't remember any of the legal geniuses that backed remain suggesting that Article 50 required parliamentary approval, so either this result is totally unexpected (and any remain smugness should be rightly mocked) or the government offered to follow a referendum on a matter it knew was beyond its powers. It seems shoddy either way.
someone from vol 1 said:
The reasoning used by the Court is interesting and the judgment is well worth a read.
Full judgment here:-
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...
Some phrases used in the judgment, referring to the submissions by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU:-
"divorced from reality"
"glossed over"
"flawed at this basic level"
"goes too far"
"misconceived"
This is what happens when you start playing with the big boys. There will be a lot more to come.
This is not a very glowing endorsement of the SofS for Exit - Davis. Full judgment here:-
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...
Some phrases used in the judgment, referring to the submissions by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU:-
"divorced from reality"
"glossed over"
"flawed at this basic level"
"goes too far"
"misconceived"
This is what happens when you start playing with the big boys. There will be a lot more to come.
It makes his department sound completely incompetent.
Its only 5 minutes old and its being totally trashed - aren't these chaps supposed to be doing the negotiations?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff