Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[Elysium]

don'tbesilly said:

'The judges and the people: Next week, 11 unaccountable individuals will consider a case that could thwart the will of the majority on Brexit. The Mail makes no apology for revealing their views - and many have links to Europe'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995754/Th...


EXCLUSIVE: Why the judges got it so wrong: Government referendum appeal will say they turned the Brexit vote into a 'FOOTNOTE' as law chief issues blistering warning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995666/Wh...

The judges seem to be as varied in their political views as you are ever going to get at that level of society / establishment.

It is quite clear that the majority of MPs supported remain, which is why the leavers are so unhappy that parliament should be involved. Why would it be surprising that this was also the prevailing view amongst the judiciary.

Bringing their families into it is appalling and ridiculous. Are the mail expecting us to believe that the most senior judges in the U.K. Will make decisions on a point of law based on the political views of their children or partners? Given the lengths they have gone to here I don't think anyone could find 11 judges they would approve of.

The article regarding the Govt case is more interesting. They are attempting to politicise the case, making it more about public feeling than a point of law. That is a bizzarre position to take and suggests to me that they expect to lose and are setting up the media to blame the judges for that (again).

Ultimately, as the referendum was very clearly advisory, the 'will of the people' argument is entirely irrelevant here. On that basis I would expect the judges to ignore any such arguments.

The case is entirely about the powers of Govt vs the powers of Parliament and which of those bodies has the authority to act on the advisory referendum. In their judgement they will have to entirely ignore any speculation about what those bodies will do. Otherwise they will be introducing bias and ruling on future intention instead of law.

[IroningMan]

Elysium said:

don'tbesilly said:

'The judges and the people: Next week, 11 unaccountable individuals will consider a case that could thwart the will of the majority on Brexit. The Mail makes no apology for revealing their views - and many have links to Europe'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995754/Th...


EXCLUSIVE: Why the judges got it so wrong: Government referendum appeal will say they turned the Brexit vote into a 'FOOTNOTE' as law chief issues blistering warning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995666/Wh...

The judges seem to be as varied in their political views as you are ever going to get at that level of society / establishment.

It is quite clear that the majority of MPs supported remain, which is why the leavers are so unhappy that parliament should be involved. Why would it be surprising that this was also the prevailing view amongst the judiciary.

Bringing their families into it is appalling and ridiculous. Are the mail expecting us to believe that the most senior judges in the U.K. Will make decisions on a point of law based on the political views of their children or partners? Given the lengths they have gone to here I don't think anyone could find 11 judges they would approve of.

The article regarding the Govt case is more interesting. They are attempting to politicise the case, making it more about public feeling than a point of law. That is a bizzarre position to take and suggests to me that they expect to lose and are setting up the media to blame the judges for that (again).

Ultimately, as the referendum was very clearly advisory, the 'will of the people' argument is entirely irrelevant here. On that basis I would expect the judges to ignore any such arguments.

The case is entirely about the powers of Govt vs the powers of Parliament and which of those bodies has the authority to act on the advisory referendum. In their judgement they will have to entirely ignore any speculation about what those bodies will do. Otherwise they will be introducing bias and ruling on future intention instead of law.

You sound like one of those unpatriotic types.

[///ajd]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

Who is the bigger threat to tory votes - UKIP Nuttalls ot LibDems?

Feels like the latter.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

Who is the bigger threat to tory votes - UKIP Nuttalls ot LibDems?

Feels like the latter.

The Downing Street source sounds legit

I can always rely on you to cheer me up

[FiF]

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

[don'tbesilly]

FiF said:

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

Purely for entertainment purposes of course, and whilst it's been posted umpteen times before, it's worth a listen again and again for the lols.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs

[don'tbesilly]

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

Who is the bigger threat to tory votes - UKIP Nuttalls ot LibDems?

Feels like the latter.

The Downing Street source sounds legit

[///ajd]

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

Who is the bigger threat to tory votes - UKIP Nuttalls ot LibDems?

Feels like the latter.

The Downing Street source sounds legit

I can always rely on you to cheer me up

You post as though you think its a real news article.

Amazing.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

You post as though you think its a real news article.

Amazing.

You post as though YOU think it's a real news article.

Hilarious

[230TE]

bmw535i said:

You post as though YOU think it's a real news article.

Hilarious

Remainers: fapping themselves into a frenzy because the Lib Dems have won a mid-term by-election for about the two hundredth time in their history.

[B'stard Child]

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

You post as though you think its a real news article.

Amazing.

You post as though YOU think it's a real news article.

Hilarious

I don't get the Joke.........

Don't explain it too me - it loses the effect


































sniggers......

[anonymous-user]

[Elysium]

FiF said:

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

So ...

If the a50 bill has already been drafted and Theresa May is now 'confident' that it will be voted through, why is she wasting our time and money fighting a case in the Supreme Court and paying the Attorney General to put forward an argument that the judges must consider the 'will of the people' when interpreting a narrow point of law?

The argument that judges should not decide that Parliament should not be involved because they may not honour an advisory referendum is foolish. The fact that the Govt are now saying that it doesn't matter anyway takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

FiF said:

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

So ...

If the a50 bill has already been drafted and Theresa May is now 'confident' that it will be voted through, why is she wasting our time and money fighting a case in the Supreme Court and paying the Attorney General to put forward an argument that the judges must consider the 'will of the people' when interpreting a narrow point of law?

It fills the void between the referendum and the actual triggering of Art.50 - the EU can't interfere and are sitting on their hands waiting and (please god I hope it is true) gives the Government more time to get their st in order in terms of preparation for the exit negotiations from the standing start that the slimey DC handed to them before he foxtrot oscar'd into the distance.

Elysium said:

The argument that judges should not decide that Parliament should not be involved because they may not honour an advisory referendum is foolish. The fact that the Govt are now saying that it doesn't matter anyway takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.

See previous comment.....

[Elysium]

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

FiF said:

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

So ...

If the a50 bill has already been drafted and Theresa May is now 'confident' that it will be voted through, why is she wasting our time and money fighting a case in the Supreme Court and paying the Attorney General to put forward an argument that the judges must consider the 'will of the people' when interpreting a narrow point of law?

It fills the void between the referendum and the actual triggering of Art.50 - the EU can't interfere and are sitting on their hands waiting and (please god I hope it is true) gives the Government more time to get their st in order in terms of preparation for the exit negotiations from the standing start that the slimey DC handed to them before he foxtrot oscar'd into the distance.

Elysium said:

The argument that judges should not decide that Parliament should not be involved because they may not honour an advisory referendum is foolish. The fact that the Govt are now saying that it doesn't matter anyway takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.

See previous comment.....

So May is buying time in order to get her act together. I agree.

So why all the nasty rabble rousing nonsense about the judges. Why not simply put together a cogent mature argument for the courts and treat the judiciary with a modicum of respect?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Elysium said:

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

FiF said:

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

So ...

If the a50 bill has already been drafted and Theresa May is now 'confident' that it will be voted through, why is she wasting our time and money fighting a case in the Supreme Court and paying the Attorney General to put forward an argument that the judges must consider the 'will of the people' when interpreting a narrow point of law?

It fills the void between the referendum and the actual triggering of Art.50 - the EU can't interfere and are sitting on their hands waiting and (please god I hope it is true) gives the Government more time to get their st in order in terms of preparation for the exit negotiations from the standing start that the slimey DC handed to them before he foxtrot oscar'd into the distance.

Elysium said:

The argument that judges should not decide that Parliament should not be involved because they may not honour an advisory referendum is foolish. The fact that the Govt are now saying that it doesn't matter anyway takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.

See previous comment.....

So May is buying time in order to get her act together. I agree.

So why all the nasty rabble rousing nonsense about the judges. Why not simply put together a cogent mature argument for the courts and treat the judiciary with a modicum of respect?

That will only happen if the judges treat the will of the majority voter in the UK with respect, If the judges choose to ignore that, they do so at the peril of the rule of law in the UK.
Why should anyone respect the law, if at any time an individual or small number of individuals, who were not happy with the result of a democratic vote, choose to just ignore it, or bend it to suit their point of view?

[cirian75]

Because they want to cause rage and anger and to keep the MPs and Lord's scared to vote no to art50

[///ajd]

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

You post as though you think its a real news article.

Amazing.

You post as though YOU think it's a real news article.

Hilarious

Is that what confused you?

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

FiF said:

So if/when the Govt loses the Supreme Court case will Parliament have the balls to vote down Article 50 declaration? link

And will the Lords then be turkeys voting for Christmas?

Plus despite all the efforts to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for, it seems they did, and voted on a point of principle. link2 Nice one Richmond, get rid of an odious twerp as your MP, and elect a clueless puppet.

So ...

If the a50 bill has already been drafted and Theresa May is now 'confident' that it will be voted through, why is she wasting our time and money fighting a case in the Supreme Court and paying the Attorney General to put forward an argument that the judges must consider the 'will of the people' when interpreting a narrow point of law?

It fills the void between the referendum and the actual triggering of Art.50 - the EU can't interfere and are sitting on their hands waiting and (please god I hope it is true) gives the Government more time to get their st in order in terms of preparation for the exit negotiations from the standing start that the slimey DC handed to them before he foxtrot oscar'd into the distance.

Elysium said:

The argument that judges should not decide that Parliament should not be involved because they may not honour an advisory referendum is foolish. The fact that the Govt are now saying that it doesn't matter anyway takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.

See previous comment.....

So May is buying time in order to get her act together. I agree.

So why all the nasty rabble rousing nonsense about the judges. Why not simply put together a cogent mature argument for the courts and treat the judiciary with a modicum of respect?

Cos she's not as smart as I'd hoped she'd be and the rabid press are probably best part of barking anyway.

May should have said:

The Government is working towards leaving the EU, many people voted to leave for many different reasons some people voted Leave to take back control of sovereignty. The rule of law is an important part of our own system of Government/constitution. We are leaving but it is important to do this in the correct way in order to avoid any potential challenges later after we have started the full process to leave. If the government faced legal challenges then it would divert resources from the real work of trying to negotiate the exit on the best possible terms for both the UK and the EU.

She could fluff it up a bit but that's what I would have expected

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

Purely for entertainment purposes of course, and whilst it's been posted umpteen times before, it's worth a listen again and again for the lols.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs

JHB is vexatious from the first anger spit riddled attack.

JHB knows its a clear anti-brexit statement and she is taking brexiteer bed wetting to new levels. Her anger belies her realisation the tories are in big trouble now.

She only quotes remain about leaving the Single Market. How telling.

Fails to appreciate vote leave talked about the single market on their own web pages - now deleted.

This is not a campaign that deserves respect, and the finality of the vote is not beyond revisiting for that reason.

Her seat will be up again in 2020. When do the people get a say about the undeliverable lies of vote leave, so we can boot it out like any other democratically elected bent and fraudulent MP?