Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Guardian reporting that Govt likely to lose the Supreme Court case, has prepared two bills to try and deal with possible alternatives dependent upon the court ruling.
Also we shouldn't forget Lady Hale's speech in November suggesting that the court could go much further and demand a wholesale revision of the 1972 European Communities Act. Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
Also we shouldn't forget Lady Hale's speech in November suggesting that the court could go much further and demand a wholesale revision of the 1972 European Communities Act. Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
The sorry forgot link to above Government will lose Brexit supreme court case, ministers believe
FiF said:
Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
Not sure if serious, or just very self-important. You should deffo write a letter to the SC explaining to them what their remit it. Perhaps draw a wagging finger to make sure they understand not to step outside it.
FiF said:
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
Extreme danger in any event of Brexit with no deal, no agreement and into WTO territory. In two years getting to anything other than that outcome when it is us vs 27 nations many of which are itching to make an example of us would be a miracle of Old Testament proportions. Throw into the mix that HMG appears to have no clearer idea of its objectives now than in September, and perhaps only a marginally better appreciation of the scale of the problem, and you're delusional if you think there is an easy route map through this, all the more so if you think the hardcore Leavers in the Govt have it in their back pocket and are being thwarted by Nick Clegg, Tim Fallon and 6 other MPs. Blaming "Remainer fools" is the icing on the cake. Laughable tribalism from someone who claims to eschew tribalism.
FiF said:
The sorry forgot link to above Government will lose Brexit supreme court case, ministers believe
This 7-4 split suggestion is interesting. Having watched the hearing with one eye, it seemed to me that Reed and Carnwath (the unintelligible old bloke on the right who kept coming at things from a different angle to everyone else) were persuaded by the Govt argument. Hughes and Hodge (very far right and very far left) were harder to call; I'm not sure that they had made their minds up by the end of it. The middle block of 7 seemed fairly well settled against the Govt, with Sumption (the man with the wild ties) regarding the whole thing as incredibly simple and a complete waste of his and everyone else's time. I'd say anywhere from 7-4 to 11-0 is possible. Minds can change and be changed during the deliberation process.
Don't think it will be closer than 7-4 though.
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
Not sure if serious, or just very self-important. You should deffo write a letter to the SC explaining to them what their remit it. Perhaps draw a wagging finger to make sure they understand not to step outside it.
FiF said:
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
Extreme danger in any event of Brexit with no deal, no agreement and into WTO territory. In two years getting to anything other than that outcome when it is us vs 27 nations many of which are itching to make an example of us would be a miracle of Old Testament proportions. Throw into the mix that HMG appears to have no clearer idea of its objectives now than in September, and perhaps only a marginally better appreciation of the scale of the problem, and you're delusional if you think there is an easy route map through this, all the more so if you think the hardcore Leavers in the Govt have it in their back pocket and are being thwarted by Nick Clegg, Tim Fallon and 6 other MPs. Blaming "Remainer fools" is the icing on the cake. Laughable tribalism from someone who claims to eschew tribalism.
Its laughable isnt it. More accurately it would be funny if the above wasnt basically what the government seems to think is going to happen. Its actually just scary.
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
Not sure if serious, or just very self-important. You should deffo write a letter to the SC explaining to them what their remit it. Perhaps draw a wagging finger to make sure they understand not to step outside it.
FiF said:
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
Extreme danger in any event of Brexit with no deal, no agreement and into WTO territory. In two years getting to anything other than that outcome when it is us vs 27 nations many of which are itching to make an example of us would be a miracle of Old Testament proportions. Throw into the mix that HMG appears to have no clearer idea of its objectives now than in September, and perhaps only a marginally better appreciation of the scale of the problem, and you're delusional if you think there is an easy route map through this, all the more so if you think the hardcore Leavers in the Govt have it in their back pocket and are being thwarted by Nick Clegg, Tim Fallon and 6 other MPs. Blaming "Remainer fools" is the icing on the cake. Laughable tribalism from someone who claims to eschew tribalism.
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
Not sure if serious, or just very self-important. You should deffo write a letter to the SC explaining to them what their remit it. Perhaps draw a wagging finger to make sure they understand not to step outside it.
If government is instructed to table legislation constitutionally it may decline (in fact may have to, to avoid Brexit getting bogged down for years in parliamentary legislation) and change the law regarding the role of the SC. To do that the likely scenario is that May realises she can't get that through the commons, triggers an election with the express aim of striking through SC jurisdiction with an enhanced 'brexit' majority. We end up with a disembowelled SC. It's a hypothetical but possibly what FiF is nodding towards.
FiF said:
Guardian reporting that Govt likely to lose the Supreme Court case, has prepared two bills to try and deal with possible alternatives dependent upon the court ruling.
Also we shouldn't forget Lady Hale's speech in November suggesting that the court could go much further and demand a wholesale revision of the 1972 European Communities Act. Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
I disagree that this is the doing of remainer fools but...Also we shouldn't forget Lady Hale's speech in November suggesting that the court could go much further and demand a wholesale revision of the 1972 European Communities Act. Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
And in terms of playing a dangerous game, Lib Dems planning to table an amendment demanding that the public get a second referendum on any deal , in which 16 year old son would also get the vote. Extreme danger then, imo, of a Brexit with no deal, no agreement, essentially a WTO exit. These Remainer fools really do have no clue, they're playing with fire in so many ways.
A genuine question:
Several Leave voters on here stated that they'd be happy to see us live in mud huts as long as it got us out of the EU.
Now assuming that some Remainers feel just as passionately about staying in, how could you NOT expect them to try and make Brexit as unpalatable as possible?
As I say, I don't think that is really the issue here but I'm surprised how people are patriotic if they're fervently pro Brexit yet traitors and fools if they are just as passionately pro Europe.
It's surely just two sides of the same coin, each fervently believing they're way is best for the country?
jjlynn27 said:
Disastrous said:
...
A genuine question:
Several Leave voters on here stated that they'd be happy to see us live in mud huts as long as it got us out of the EU.
...
Not sure if serious. Why wouldn't you be happy with a move to a bigger, more comfortable place?A genuine question:
Several Leave voters on here stated that they'd be happy to see us live in mud huts as long as it got us out of the EU.
...
Ridgemont said:
There is plenty of commentary from pretty clued up sources in the legal community suggesting the SC may just about to be about to go down the wrong track.
Really? Who are these "sources" and what is "the wrong track"?Ridgemont said:
As FiF notes, if the SC goes as far as Hughes suggested, and instructs government to submit substantive statutory legislation to handle this process, then the SC is very much intervening on parliamentary sovereignty.
To unpack that: (1) It was Hale, not Hughes, who gave the lecture pre-Brexit
(2) Hale set out what the arguments were on each side. She didn't set out her own view
(3) she said in passing, and in the context of the point that an Act has to be repealed by an Act, that an argument in this case may be that the 1972 Act would not just have to be repealed, it would have to be replaced.
(4) I don't recall any of the challenging parties advancing this argument before the SC.
(5) The SC doesn't "instruct" Govt to do anything. It tells the Govt what the law is, and so informs the Govt as to whether its proposed course of action is lawful or unlawful.
(6) Stating what the law requires to repeal the 1972 Act can on no sensible view be "intervening on parliamentary sovereignty".
Ridgemont said:
Parliament retains the ability currently to intervene in the article 50 process now: it could decline any motions that the government submits. It is not requiring the submission of statute. It does not largely for political reasons.
At the moment there is no art 50 process for Parliament to intervene in, and if May were to have her way and exercise the prerogative to invoke A50, Parliament would not be able to intervene in the invocation full stop. That's kind of the point of the whole Brexit case. Ridgemont said:
If government is instructed to table legislation constitutionally it may decline (in fact may have to, to avoid Brexit getting bogged down for years in parliamentary legislation)
It may decline? Really? You sure about that?
Ridgemont said:
and change the law regarding the role of the SC.
Say what? How, why and to what end? Ridgemont said:
To do that the likely scenario is that May realises she can't get that through the commons, triggers an election with the express aim of striking through SC jurisdiction with an enhanced 'brexit' majority. We end up with a disembowelled SC. It's a hypothetical but possibly what FiF is nodding towards.
What? Fixed Term Parliaments Act, anyone? How does an election result change the law? Very little of this makes any sense, I'm afraid.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th January 13:32
Disastrous said:
jjlynn27 said:
Disastrous said:
...
A genuine question:
Several Leave voters on here stated that they'd be happy to see us live in mud huts as long as it got us out of the EU.
...
Not sure if serious. Why wouldn't you be happy with a move to a bigger, more comfortable place?A genuine question:
Several Leave voters on here stated that they'd be happy to see us live in mud huts as long as it got us out of the EU.
...
Make a nice change to living in a cardboard box on the hard shoulder of the M6 for me and many other Midlanders.
Murph7355 said:
What other policies of theirs would you be voting for?
Farron's stance on free movement is outmoded. You know categorically that is the case when even Comrade Corbyn backtracks faster than an Italian General.
.
I don't give a toss about free movement. I see it as beneficial and I would prefer it but it is not the be-all and end-all to me. I believe it is quite likely that even if we 'take back control' of our borders, immigration levels will stay at the same so to me it is all irrelevant.Farron's stance on free movement is outmoded. You know categorically that is the case when even Comrade Corbyn backtracks faster than an Italian General.
.
My entire strength of opinion is based on the free market and 100% of other policies of any parties are trivial in comparison to me. I believe leaving it will be very harmful to us so any party that keeps us in it gets my vote (except Labour. The thought of Corbyn as prime minister is the single most terrifying prospect in political history to me)
Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 11th January 15:01
catso said:
jsf said:
To back remaining in the EU is ignoring the democratic will of the people, it is anti-democratic.
Indeed it maybe but, had remain won do you think Farage and all his fanboys would have simply accepted it? Nothing stopping a new group starting a let's rejoin the EU campaign once we have left either.
But right now, the British people have instructed their government to leave the EU, so that must happen if you believe in democracy.
B'stard Child said:
wc98 said:
blindswelledrat said:
but they are a credible party who there is no doubt will be able to compose a credible mandate for an election on all issues.
that is the first time in a long time i have seen that collection of words mentioned at the same time as the lib dems for a very long time .it will be interesting to see if they do manage to rebuild based on their pro eu position.
blindswelledrat said:
I don't give a toss about free movement. I see it as beneficial and I would prefer it but it is not the be-all and end-all to me. I believe it is quite likely that even if we 'take back control' of our borders, immigration levels will stay at the same so to me it is all irrelevant.
My entire strength of opinion is based on the free market and 100% of other policies of any parties are trivial in comparison to me. I believe leaving it will be very harmful to us so any party that keeps us in it gets my vote (except Labour. The thought of Corbyn as prime minister is the single most terrifying prospect in political history to me)
I believe you are very much in the minority (and I don't disagree with some of what you note).My entire strength of opinion is based on the free market and 100% of other policies of any parties are trivial in comparison to me. I believe leaving it will be very harmful to us so any party that keeps us in it gets my vote (except Labour. The thought of Corbyn as prime minister is the single most terrifying prospect in political history to me)
If the LibDems get any sniff of power in 2020 it will make 2016 look like a normal day in the office politics wise!
Ridgemont said:
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
Dangerous game the judges are doing if they get into what I feel is outside their remit.
Not sure if serious, or just very self-important. You should deffo write a letter to the SC explaining to them what their remit it. Perhaps draw a wagging finger to make sure they understand not to step outside it.
If government is instructed to table legislation constitutionally it may decline (in fact may have to, to avoid Brexit getting bogged down for years in parliamentary legislation) and change the law regarding the role of the SC. To do that the likely scenario is that May realises she can't get that through the commons, triggers an election with the express aim of striking through SC jurisdiction with an enhanced 'brexit' majority. We end up with a disembowelled SC. It's a hypothetical but possibly what FiF is nodding towards.
I posted a few weeks ago regarding the logical sequence of events that results if the Supreme Court upholds the earlier verdict. I think that inevitably leads to a more complex article 50 bill:
On the way in:
1. Govt uses executive powers to agree a treaty giving rise to new rights and obligations.
2. Parliament creates new laws to enact the rights and obligations created by the treaty.
The original judgement was based on the view that, on the way out, the process must be reversed. The law must be changed before the treaty is changed.
If this is upheld, then Parliament must change the law to remove any rights created by EU membership before an a50 notice can correctly issued (because it must be issued in accordance with our constitutional requirements). The only way this can be avoided would be if a50 was considered to be reversible.
I think this is what Lady Hale is getting at and if it is right then the 'great repeal bill' will need to happen before a50.
The press may spin this as the Supreme Court 'demanding' something, but in reality, they are simply explaining what the law requires.
It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks, with this and Trump!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff