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

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

You asked if I was going to take 'offence' at their post. I explained why I didn't respond to it.

Not retarded are you?

No I'm "foolish", you and Gina are retarded

Do you know how much of a cretin you seem by calling everyone a retard? Jesus man get a grip.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

I would suggest you learn what 'retarded' actually means and then see if you think it actually fits here.

It does.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

You asked if I was going to take 'offence' at their post. I explained why I didn't respond to it.

Not retarded are you?

No I'm "foolish", you and Gina are retarded

Do you know how much of a cretin you seem by calling everyone a retard? Jesus man get a grip.

Everyone?

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

p1stonhead said:

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

You asked if I was going to take 'offence' at their post. I explained why I didn't respond to it.

Not retarded are you?

No I'm "foolish", you and Gina are retarded

Do you know how much of a cretin you seem by calling everyone a retard? Jesus man get a grip.

Everyone?

Do you know what the word means?

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Do you know what the word means?

The word 'everyone'? Yes, I do. Do you?

[anonymous-user]

jamoor said:

We want Brexit done properly and within the law of the land, the rule of law prevails.

The government most certainly isn't above the law as this proves, and if you don't like the way the country is then you can leave IMO.

The Government makes the law, that's the whole point of Parliament. So long as they have a majority large enough they can bring into law whatever they wish. The law courts are subservient to Parliament.

Of course the Government has to follow the law on the statute book, but don't think its the law courts that are the final say, it's Parliament.

[PugwasHDJ80]

Technically its the people that have the final say

If the courts have a rule that doesn't work, then the people can vote in a government to change it.

Oh wait, lets just cut out all the bks in the middle and realise that we've already done the voting bit......

[anonymous-user]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Technically its the people that have the final say

If the courts have a rule that doesn't work, then the people can vote in a government to change it.

Oh wait, lets just cut out all the bks in the middle and realise that we've already done the voting bit......

Correct, which is why there is no question of the UK remaining in the EU by any means that the people of the country consider is in fact not leaving.

That is what is driving the process, we just have to sit through a load of bks whilst the MP's go through the motions they know they have no choice in doing.

[B'stard Child]

jsf said:

Correct, which is why there is no question of the UK remaining in the EU by any means that the people of the country consider is in fact not leaving.

That is what is driving the process, we just have to sit through a load of bks whilst the MP's go through the motions they know they have no choice in doing.

Exactly - lots more bks still to come yet

Hey ho we'll get there in the end

[powerstroke]

p1stonhead said:

I'm not wishing for anything. If anything it's been 6 months too long of absolute bks. But I want things done properly not on Mays whim.

:

Nor me we voted to Leave the EU ... not some watered down Cloudy brexit ...

[Elysium]

bmw535i said:

Gina, you're as retarded as disastrous. Nobody is in la la land - if we aren't able to negotiate a deal, we will walk away. The PM has been quite clear on this.

Brexit ruling: Gina Miller attacks 'despicable' politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964

Also, please don't try and make out talking about Brexit should be encouraged and is patriotic - just this thread has shown us that talking about it attracts repeated accusations of racism.

I'm glad her utterly pointless court case has been won - its achieved fk all and when she realises that she's going to be even more hysterical.

You have completely missed the point. If Gina Miller had not brought this case, someone else would have.

Theresa May knew from the outset that there was a large body of legal opinion stating that parliamentary approval would be required to trigger article 50. One of those opinions was from Lord Pannick the QC who 'represented' Miller. It's quite obvious that the case was as much about his view on the legalities of the matter as any individuals political beliefs.

It was an extraordinary lapse of judgement on her part to gamble that it would be OK to use the Royal Prerogative. Gina Miller and others have done us all a service by challenging that now as a JR after the issue of A50 would have been catastrophic.

The fact that she and the judges have been criticised by MPs is despicable. Her comments are entirely justified. She is a uk citizen and like the rest of us, she is entitled to expect the Govt to act lawfully.

The Govt should not have defended this challenge at all. It has been a colossal waste of time and money. David Davis tried to argue yesterday that it was essential to appeal to rule out the devolved parliaments veto, but this could not even have been argued if they had not appealed.

In fact, it simply illustrates the stupid risk that the Govt took by appealing. If the appeal had concluded that Scotland could veto Brexit would have been dead in the water entirely as a result of Mays foolish actions.

Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 25th January 07:50

[skahigh]

Elysium said:

You have completely missed the point. If Gina Miller had not brought this case, someone else would have.

Theresa May knew from the outset that there was a large body of legal opinion stating that parliamentary approval would be required to trigger article 50. One of those opinions was from Lord Pannick the QC who 'represented' Miller. It's quite obvious that the case was as much about his view on the legalities of the matter as any individuals political beliefs.

It was an extraordinary lapse of judgement on her part to gamble that it would be OK to use the Royal Prerogative. Gina Miller and others have done us all a service by challenging that now as a JR after the issue of A50 would have been catastrophic.

The fact that she and the judges have been criticised by MPs is despicable. Her comments are entirely justified. She is a uk citizen and like the rest of us, she is entitled to expect the Govt to act lawfully.

The Govt should not have defended this challenge at all. It has been a colossal waste of time and money. David Davis tried to argue yesterday that it was essential to appeal to rule out the devolved parliaments veto, but this could not even have been argued if they had not appealed.

In fact, it simply illustrates the stupid risk that the Govt took by appealing. If the appeal had concluded that Scotland could veto Brexit would have been dead in the water entirely as a result of Mays foolish actions.

Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 25th January 07:50

Your post is somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand you say the legal action was necessary before the royal prerogative was used to avoid later judicial review (I'm guessing this is what you meant by JR??), on the other you say the government should not have appealed because it may have given the devolved assemblies a veto on brexit. If the government had not appealed and been given the go ahead to ignore the devolved assemblies but did so anyway, do you not think that this too would be subject to later judicial review?

Personally, I've come around to the idea that perhaps all of this was a blessing to the government as it's taken the pressure off them to 'get on with it' and given them time to formulate a proper governmental strategy that wasn't done before the referendum and start hiring the right people for the negotiations to come.

I'm not certain whether this is an intentional play for time by the government or not but it's certainly been incredibly helpful for them.

Edit. I'm sure the financial cost of this to the country is far less than the cost if we had rushed into brexit totally unprepared and got it wrong.

Edited by skahigh on Wednesday 25th January 08:06

[PRTVR]

Elysium said:

bmw535i said:

Gina, you're as retarded as disastrous. Nobody is in la la land - if we aren't able to negotiate a deal, we will walk away. The PM has been quite clear on this.

Brexit ruling: Gina Miller attacks 'despicable' politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964

Also, please don't try and make out talking about Brexit should be encouraged and is patriotic - just this thread has shown us that talking about it attracts repeated accusations of racism.

I'm glad her utterly pointless court case has been won - its achieved fk all and when she realises that she's going to be even more hysterical.

You have completely missed the point. If Gina Miller had not brought this case, someone else would have.

Theresa May knew from the outset that there was a large body of legal opinion stating that parliamentary approval would be required to trigger article 50. One of those opinions was from Lord Pannick the QC who 'represented' Miller. It's quite obvious that the case was as much about his view on the legalities of the matter as any individuals political beliefs.

It was an extraordinary lapse of judgement on her part to gamble that it would be OK to use the Royal Prerogative. Gina Miller and others have done us all a service by challenging that now as a JR after the issue of A50 would have been catastrophic.

The fact that she and the judges have been criticised by MPs is despicable. Her comments are entirely justified. She is a uk citizen and like the rest of us, she is entitled to expect the Govt to act lawfully.

The Govt should not have defended this challenge at all. It has been a colossal waste of time and money. David David tried to argue yesterday that it was essential to appeal to rule out the devolved parliaments veto, but this could not even have been argued if they had not appealed.

In fact, it simply illustrates the stupid risk that the Govt took by appealing. If the appeal had concluded that Scotland could veto Brexit would have been dead in the water entirely as a result of Mays foolish actions.

She did it purely to try and change or slow down BREXIT ,she was a ardent remainer,to try and paint it any other way is wrong,you have to look at her motivation, had she at any time in the past challenged the government in a similar way ? No, motivation is everything.

[confused_buyer]

Elysium said:

You have completely missed the point. If Gina Miller had not brought this case, someone else would have.

Theresa May knew from the outset that there was a large body of legal opinion stating that parliamentary approval would be required to trigger article 50. One of those opinions was from Lord Pannick the QC who 'represented' Miller. It's quite obvious that the case was as much about his view on the legalities of the matter as any individuals political beliefs.

Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 25th January 07:50

I'm not sure it was quite as obvious at the start. Cameron had stated his intention to trigger Article 50 immediately and no one said "you can't do that" and Corbyn called for it to be triggered immediately after the referendum and again no one said "impossible". It was only once it got to the High Court people seemed to suddenly think "hang on, they may have a point here...."

I agree it has been a waste of time and money but I think HMG did want clarity on the Devolved issues and whether any particular type of legislation was required. They didn't want to pass legislation and have it challenged afterwards.

[FiF]

Greg66 said:

Zod said:

Greg66 said:

Greg66 said:

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.

I'm booking that as a balls on accurate prediction of the outcome.

Now, the lottery numbers. Hmm...

It's 8-3, Greg.

Oh, come on ref!

The result was within the range; I picked two of the three dissenters (reed and Carnwath) and fingered Hughes (dissenter) and Hodge (majority) as either way.

I think I deserve a MASSIVE congrats for that.

I'll give you the result on that, near enough call. Noted that Carnwath has declared similar views to my own that judges should have left it to Parliament to sort out its own affairs. But they were asked to rule on various points of law which is what they are there for.

[wiggy001]

p1stonhead said:

How about answer my question in the context of why you are annoyed with the ruling then? It May decided tomorrow to remain, you think that's fine because she should have the power to do what she wants?

It's a simple question for a simple mind.

I've got a simple mind, so will answer this question if you don't mind.

We voted in the Conservatives who promised us a referendum. Whether legally correct or not, they said that they would let the people decide whether we stay or leave the EU and this is one of the reasons they are in government. They, like every government before them, are elected to work on our behalf.

If Theresa May decided that she would not trigger article 50 (in contrast to her party's manifesto) then that is fine with me. I would then be wanting a General Election asap so we can vote in a party that will take us out of the EU.

My view my be biased by the fact that, despite wanting to leave the EU, I would have preferred that we had a political system that would allow us to vote a party into Government on a manifesto pledge of taking us out of the EU without a referendum. We only needed a referendum because neither Labour nor the Tories had the stomach to decide whether to stay or leave as they knew it would split their votes at the next GE.

[p1stonhead]

wiggy001 said:

p1stonhead said:

How about answer my question in the context of why you are annoyed with the ruling then? It May decided tomorrow to remain, you think that's fine because she should have the power to do what she wants?

It's a simple question for a simple mind.

I've got a simple mind, so will answer this question if you don't mind.

We voted in the Conservatives who promised us a referendum. Whether legally correct or not, they said that they would let the people decide whether we stay or leave the EU and this is one of the reasons they are in government. They, like every government before them, are elected to work on our behalf.

If Theresa May decided that she would not trigger article 50 (in contrast to her party's manifesto) then that is fine with me. I would then be wanting a General Election asap so we can vote in a party that will take us out of the EU.

My view my be biased by the fact that, despite wanting to leave the EU, I would have preferred that we had a political system that would allow us to vote a party into Government on a manifesto pledge of taking us out of the EU without a referendum. We only needed a referendum because neither Labour nor the Tories had the stomach to decide whether to stay or leave as they knew it would split their votes at the next GE.

A well written reasoned argument. The other bloke wouldn't have been able to write this he's too busy calling people retards.

[Elysium]

skahigh said:

Elysium said:

You have completely missed the point. If Gina Miller had not brought this case, someone else would have.

Theresa May knew from the outset that there was a large body of legal opinion stating that parliamentary approval would be required to trigger article 50. One of those opinions was from Lord Pannick the QC who 'represented' Miller. It's quite obvious that the case was as much about his view on the legalities of the matter as any individuals political beliefs.

It was an extraordinary lapse of judgement on her part to gamble that it would be OK to use the Royal Prerogative. Gina Miller and others have done us all a service by challenging that now as a JR after the issue of A50 would have been catastrophic.

The fact that she and the judges have been criticised by MPs is despicable. Her comments are entirely justified. She is a uk citizen and like the rest of us, she is entitled to expect the Govt to act lawfully.

The Govt should not have defended this challenge at all. It has been a colossal waste of time and money. David Davis tried to argue yesterday that it was essential to appeal to rule out the devolved parliaments veto, but this could not even have been argued if they had not appealed.

In fact, it simply illustrates the stupid risk that the Govt took by appealing. If the appeal had concluded that Scotland could veto Brexit would have been dead in the water entirely as a result of Mays foolish actions.

Your post is somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand you say the legal action was necessary before the royal prerogative was used to avoid later judicial review (I'm guessing this is what you meant by JR??), on the other you say the government should not have appealed because it may have given the devolved assemblies a veto on brexit. If the government had not appealed and been given the go ahead to ignore the devolved assemblies but did so anyway, do you not think that this too would be subject to later judicial review?

I can see why you might think that, but we need to remember how unprecedented this supreme court hearing was. I think it is highly unlikely that the devolved governments would have mounted a legal challenge against the UK govt in any other circumstances. By appealing, the Govt gave them a political reason and platform to join the challenge. Although David Davis is suggesting, via hindsight, that this was all part of a plan, it is a fact that the devolved assemblies were not part of the original challenge and that they only became involved AFTER the Govt's rather surprising decision to appeal.

skahigh said:

Personally, I've come around to the idea that perhaps all of this was a blessing to the government as it's taken the pressure off them to 'get on with it' and given them time to formulate a proper governmental strategy that wasn't done before the referendum and start hiring the right people for the negotiations to come.

I'm not certain whether this is an intentional play for time by the government or not but it's certainly been incredibly helpful for them.

Edit. I'm sure the financial cost of this to the country is far less than the cost if we had rushed into brexit totally unprepared and got it wrong.

I think you have hit the nail on the head that it is a play for time by the Govt. It has not delayed the Mar 2017 deadline and in fact it has created a slightly counter-intuitive view that the Govt is pushing hard to maintain it. Defusing arguments from hardcore leavers that the process is taking too long.

This is why I think it is wrong to fall for the rhetoric and blame the challengers. They have been used by the lawyers and the Govt have used the situation to their advantage.

If this a50 bill is as simple as Davis keeps saying, there is no reason at all why it could not have already been agreed by Parliament. Other than May being perfectly happy to wait and see how the judgement panned out.

[Elysium]

confused_buyer said:

Elysium said:

You have completely missed the point. If Gina Miller had not brought this case, someone else would have.

Theresa May knew from the outset that there was a large body of legal opinion stating that parliamentary approval would be required to trigger article 50. One of those opinions was from Lord Pannick the QC who 'represented' Miller. It's quite obvious that the case was as much about his view on the legalities of the matter as any individuals political beliefs.

I'm not sure it was quite as obvious at the start. Cameron had stated his intention to trigger Article 50 immediately and no one said "you can't do that" and Corbyn called for it to be triggered immediately after the referendum and again no one said "impossible". It was only once it got to the High Court people seemed to suddenly think "hang on, they may have a point here...."

I agree it has been a waste of time and money but I think HMG did want clarity on the Devolved issues and whether any particular type of legislation was required. They didn't want to pass legislation and have it challenged afterwards.

The legal concerns regarding A50 notification were very clearly set out in House of Commons library briefing papers issued to ministers and MP's in the weeks immediately following the vote. Look at page 11 of the document here. This also deals with the role of the devolved assemblies:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...

There was also David Pannicks 30th June article in the times:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...

I also remember this article from Sept as the preliminary challenge hearings were planned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/in-its-...

The Govt knew they were on thin ice with this one from the start.

PRTVR said:

She did it purely to try and change or slow down BREXIT ,she was a ardent remainer,to try and paint it any other way is wrong,you have to look at her motivation, had she at any time in the past challenged the government in a similar way ? No, motivation is everything.

You may be right about Gina Millers motivation, but in the end that is not important. This is about the Got's unlawful approach to Brexit. The fact that you may support or object to the Govt's intentions is irrelevant to their lawfulness.

Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 25th January 12:05

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

A well written reasoned argument. The other bloke wouldn't have been able to write this he's too busy calling people retards.

People or everyone? get over it, honestly!