16 Word Brexit Begins Bill
Discussion
neilr said:
B'stard Child said:
The court case was a bonus - it kept the Remainers with some hope
It's not about having some hope that it might not happen. It's about whether the law of the land allows a sitting government to implement legislation without it being voted on in the HoC. I hope the commons do have to vote on it. As i said previously, this time it might anger the people who voted to leave. Next time it might protect us all from a government looking to do who knows what.
neilr said:
Theresa May isn't a fan of personal freedoms and finds democracy slightly tedious. I can't see her planning a scenario that gives the country a get-out at the last minute option. She might have come out as pro remain but she would much rather have nothing to do with things like the European Convention on Human Rights for example. I simply don't buy into this being a 'master stroke' by her or her team of buffoons.
I think your opinion is equally valid however I would also say that it might be clouding your judgement to see things impartially......neilr said:
B'stard Child said:
The court case was a bonus - it kept the Remainers with some hope
It's not about having some hope that it might not happen. It's about whether the law of the land allows a sitting government to implement legislation without it being voted on in the HoC. I hope the commons do have to vote on it. As i said previously, this time it might anger the people who voted to leave. Next time it might protect us all from a government looking to do who knows what.Theresa May isn't a fan of personal freedoms and finds democracy slightly tedious. I can't see her planning a scenario that gives the country a get-out at the last minute option. She might have come out as pro remain but she would much rather have nothing to do with things like the European Convention on Human Rights for example. I simply don't buy into this being a 'master stroke' by her or her team of buffoons.
I do not believe that private individuals, even wealthy ones, instigate convoluted and expensive Court proceedings on arcane points of Constitutional law out of a sense of altruistic good will towards to public at large. They do it because they want to personally get something out of it - even if that is just a sense of winning. Let's face it though, this is ultimately about money. It will almost certainly be the case that the person bringing this action stands to lose out financially (or thinks they might) when we exit the EU. They are not doing out of a personal interest in obscure points of law.
As I have said previously, I do think that the Court case is necessary as it is important that the actual method of our leaving is legally correct. We are leaving though so they are wasting their money.
AJL308 said:
Let us not kid ourselves though. The motives of those bringing the case are not ones of having burning, deeply held desires to see the constitutionally correct legal principles applied to our leaving the EU. It is an attempt by people who do not wish us to leave the EU to string things out as long as possible and, hopefully, make it so difficult to actually leave that we end up never doing so. The whole case is based on frivolous underpinnings and is, to a certain extent, vexatious as it is being brought for what are essentially "fake" motives.
The motive of those bringing the case is to show how clever they are by destroying the Govt lawyers in court. Lord Pannick, one of the leading barristers arguing the case against the Govt gave this opinion in June:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-th...
This case is being brought by the lawyers. The claimants, including Gina Miller are simply token 'real people' who were prepared to allow the case to be brought in their name. If they had not agreed the lawyers would have found someone else.
May did not have to fight the original challenge, or appeal. It is not delaying anything at all as she has no intention of triggering Brexit until Spring 2017. In fact her advocate gave that as an undertaking to the court in the preliminary hearing.
I disagree that it is frivolous or vexatious, it is about following correct legal process and that is very important for a decision of this magnitude. It is also about involvement of parliament in the implementation of an important decision.
I did not imagine for a moment that a leave vote in the referendum would lead to us leaving without any parliamentary scrutiny. The idea that it could be done via Royal Prerogative was a new one on me and I recall being surprised when I heard it.
It seems to me that the Govt are putting on a pantomime to keep the leavers happy. Their behaviour demeans the vote.
B'stard Child said:
It was also clear that many MP's in HOC were torn (on the matter of declaration of Article 50) if they should vote with with their constituencies (bearing in mind the "expanded districts" used in the referendum compared to a GE) or what they thought was best for the country (the two things were not the same in the case of some MP's)
While I can see the argument both ways on this, the more persuasive argument for me is that if the MP voted for the referendum bill they should vote in accordance with the outcome, not their personal or their constituents' preference. They voted that the country should decide, not that they should decide or their constituents should decide.paulrockliffe said:
B'stard Child said:
It was also clear that many MP's in HOC were torn (on the matter of declaration of Article 50) if they should vote with with their constituencies (bearing in mind the "expanded districts" used in the referendum compared to a GE) or what they thought was best for the country (the two things were not the same in the case of some MP's)
While I can see the argument both ways on this, the more persuasive argument for me is that if the MP voted for the referendum bill they should vote in accordance with the outcome, not their personal or their constituents' preference. They voted that the country should decide, not that they should decide or their constituents should decide.However they voted to have an advisory referendum on a subject that they thought would result in a "Remain result"
In the early days after "independance day" I doubt they would have done
AJL308 said:
neilr said:
Maybe, just maybe it's a good idea to have the royal prerogative for this tested by the courts.
This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
It is. I voted to leave but I have no problem with the current Court proceedings. In fact I think that they should be gone through as a matter of necessity so that neither side can say that the method by which we left was not lawful. The key point being though is that we are leaving - end of story.This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
Let us not kid ourselves though. The motives of those bringing the case are not ones of having burning, deeply held desires to see the constitutionally correct legal principles applied to our leaving the EU. It is an attempt by people who do not wish us to leave the EU to string things out as long as possible and, hopefully, make it so difficult to actually leave that we end up never doing so. The whole case is based on frivolous underpinnings and is, to a certain extent, vexatious as it is being brought for what are essentially "fake" motives.
By far the greater number are hard core europhiles; ironically it's this ilk who have shaped our laws in the shadow of Brussels..
Sylvaforever said:
Just read the bios of their esteemed lordships and ladyship.
By far the greater number are hard core europhiles; ironically it's this ilk who have shaped our laws in the shadow of Brussels..
They can be as biased as hell to whatever they like - their task is to rule on the law.By far the greater number are hard core europhiles; ironically it's this ilk who have shaped our laws in the shadow of Brussels..
eatcustard said:
esxste said:
People think I'm crazy, but the reason why Theresa May is chasing this in the courts is because establishing Royal Prerogative to withdraw from treaties that confer rights to British Citizens will make it all the easier for her to remove us from the ECHR.
We're headed for dark times... and the masses apparently are too vacant to see it. They'll see it soon enough.
What is wrong with us leaving the ECHR and having a British bill of rights?We're headed for dark times... and the masses apparently are too vacant to see it. They'll see it soon enough.
Regarding the ECHR (which we helped set up) We're already seeing the judiciary comming under pressure from our own cabinet and certain factions of the press to influence their interpretation of law. Having a human rights court above our own strikes me as a safeguard I'd much rather have as a British citizen when the Corbynistas/Facists come.
And if they don't come, the EHCR doesn't negatively impact me by being there.
Elysium said:
This case is being brought by the lawyers. The claimants, including Gina Miller are simply token 'real people' who were prepared to allow the case to be brought in their name. If they had not agreed the lawyers would have found someone else.
I suspect some of the interest and backing is from top 1% ers who realise their interests and networks are better served by remaining, nothing more, nothing less.moanthebairns said:
Ok, for a moment, pretend that I don't know anything about politics, the eu or article 50, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense.
It opens up a cluster fk.
it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well fk you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no.
Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living st out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law.
Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Nor can I be arsed to read a million articles on something that seems like its going to happen one way or the other. Wheres morgan freeman to explain this for me.
Fundamentally because we don't live a in true democracy. You can't bypass the established political and legal process just because we had a referendum. The process and the law are not there to be ignored at convenience that sets a dangerous precedent. The bill should pass though parliament and we should get to see who ignores the will of their constituents either way, see how long they stay in their jobs. Fear not we're leaving.The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense. It opens up a cluster f
k. it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well f
k you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no. Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living s
t out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law. Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Nor can I be arsed to read a million articles on something that seems like its going to happen one way or the other. Wheres morgan freeman to explain this for me.
glazbagun said:
Nothing if it's debated in parliament and voted on by our MPs. Plenty if it's pushed through by the cabinet of whatever government rules the day.
Regarding the ECHR (which we helped set up) We're already seeing the judiciary comming under pressure from our own cabinet and certain factions of the press to influence their interpretation of law. Having a human rights court above our own strikes me as a safeguard I'd much rather have as a British citizen when the Corbynistas/Facists come.
And if they don't come, the EHCR doesn't negatively impact me by being there.
Exactly this. Regarding the ECHR (which we helped set up) We're already seeing the judiciary comming under pressure from our own cabinet and certain factions of the press to influence their interpretation of law. Having a human rights court above our own strikes me as a safeguard I'd much rather have as a British citizen when the Corbynistas/Facists come.
And if they don't come, the EHCR doesn't negatively impact me by being there.
The European Convention on Human Rights is an extremely important treaty that defines the basic human rights for every human being who is in a signatory country. Being a treaty, ratified by numerous countries, it prevents individual governments from unilaterally deciding what is or isn't a human right. It had heavy British influences when it was drawn up and so enshrines many traditional British values.
The horrors of the Holocaust, it must be remembered; were legal in the law of Germany, set by the Government of the time. National Courts interpret the law, as it is set by Parliament. By having an extra-national court; interpreting the articles of an international treaty and applying them to individual cases provides a line of defence against Governments that would follow a path towards atrocity.
The first step on such a path would be to leave the ECHR.
This is why Theresa May's desire to leave the ECHR is so dangerous and worrying.
The Court case in the Supreme Court is linked to that I am sure. The Government can quickly pass a bill through Parliament allowing the PM to trigger A.50. 16 words apparently. There is no reason to try to establish Royal Prerogative to withdraw from treaties that are enacted by Acts of Parliament, unless there is another goal further down the line.
esxste said:
The first step on such a path would be to leave the ECHR.
This is why Theresa May's desire to leave the ECHR is so dangerous and worrying.
You see this is what I really, really struggle to see; that leaving the ECHR is somehow tantamount to beginning down a path of going stark staring crazy and rounding people up to murder them on an industrial scale. There is simply no truth or logic to this extrapolation.This is why Theresa May's desire to leave the ECHR is so dangerous and worrying.
Or to put in another way, I don't actually think it is the ECHR that is either the primary or sole factor stopping us from committing genocide.
Digga said:
ou see this is what I really, really struggle to see; that leaving the ECHR is somehow tantamount to beginning down a path of going stark staring crazy and rounding people up to murder them on an industrial scale. There is simply no truth or logic to this extrapolation.
Or to put in another way, I don't actually think it is the ECHR that is either the primary or sole factor stopping us from committing genocide.
No, but it is one of the checks and balances that our forefathers put in place to try and subvert the forces that they had to endure and fight against.Or to put in another way, I don't actually think it is the ECHR that is either the primary or sole factor stopping us from committing genocide.
We dismantle such protections at our peril.
loudlashadjuster said:
No, but it is one of the checks and balances that our forefathers put in place to try and subvert the forces that they had to endure and fight against.
We dismantle such protections at our peril.
We wouldnt be dismantling it. Merely removing ourselves from its direct control and accepting its judgements as advisory only. The UK has never needed the ECHR to maintain human rights.We dismantle such protections at our peril.
Digga said:
ou see this is what I really, really struggle to see; that leaving the ECHR is somehow tantamount to beginning down a path of going stark staring crazy and rounding people up to murder them on an industrial scale. There is simply no truth or logic to this extrapolation.
Or to put in another way, I don't actually think it is the ECHR that is either the primary or sole factor stopping us from committing genocide.
Well there are many other human rights abuses beyond volition of Article 2 - Life.Or to put in another way, I don't actually think it is the ECHR that is either the primary or sole factor stopping us from committing genocide.
What motive could any Government have for leaving such a treaty? They could unilaterally legislate to confer additional human rights without leaving the ECHR. So the motive would be to curtail on one or more human rights set out in the ECHR.
If there are issues with it; the Government could propose amendments to other signatories.
If there are issues with the domestic law; the HRA in this case, then the Government can put amendments to Parliament. It could put a repeal and a new Bill before Parliament (the British Bill of Rights).
It's worth noting 49 European (EU and non-EU) countries are members and signatories of this treaty - including Russia.
esxste said:
What motive could any Government have for leaving such a treaty? They could unilaterally legislate to confer additional human rights without leaving the ECHR. So the motive would be to curtail on one or more human rights set out in the ECHR.
Does the USA want to be in the ECHR? Or Australia? Canada? Do they wish to curtail one or more human rights? Or do you think they believe themselves perfectly capable of maintaining human rights, without the input of a court which appoints people they would never consider posting to any judicial position?s2art said:
We wouldnt be dismantling it. Merely removing ourselves from its direct control and accepting its judgements as advisory only. The UK has never needed the ECHR to maintain human rights.
As I mentioned before; 49 European states are signed up to the ECHR - including ones with very chequered recent histories. The UK... a founding memeber, removing itself and considering the treaty provisions as "advisory" would effectively dismantle it. You talk control, like it is a government. It's not. Its a set of rules our country signed up to (after writing them).
s2art said:
Does the USA want to be in the ECHR? Or Australia? Canada? Do they wish to curtail one or more human rights? Or do you think they believe themselves perfectly capable of maintaining human rights, without the input of a court which appoints people they would never consider posting to any judicial position?
Ahh yeah, great examples there. USA has a great history of Human Rights. Just great. The best.
Canada was walking a very fine line until Trudeau was elected; and still has issues with First Nations peoples but probably the strongest of your examples.
And Australia... well they've got a sparkling history of treating the aboriginal peoples well.
However, all are still signed up to various treaties on Human Rights. There is clearly a recognised value in signing treaties on Human Rights in those countries.
What particular article of the ECHR do you take offence to most?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff