16 Word Brexit Begins Bill

[esxste]

Digga said:

There have been cases where the ECHR has been used to ill effect, in order to subvert the law of the land, mostly by terrorists and hate preachers, so it is far from perfect - perhaps due an overhaul.

Well they attempted to use it, sometimes successfully, in order to stay in the land in order to subvert the law.

These are people that do not believe in Human Rights. You can either prove them right by denying even them human rights, or you can prove them wrong by upholding their human rights.


I'm not adovocating the ECHR is perfect; but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Amendments not withdrawal.

[Digga]

esxste said:

Digga said:

There have been cases where the ECHR has been used to ill effect, in order to subvert the law of the land, mostly by terrorists and hate preachers, so it is far from perfect - perhaps due an overhaul.

Well they attempted to use it, sometimes successfully, in order to stay in the land in order to subvert the law.

These are people that do not believe in Human Rights. You can either prove them right by denying even them human rights, or you can prove them wrong by upholding their human rights.


I'm not adovocating the ECHR is perfect; but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Amendments not withdrawal.

The actual benefits to the UK or British subjects are less than clear - vaguely woolly even - but the argument of staying within it, in order to better hold others to our own values is possibly more convincing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wha...

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/eight-reasons-why-human...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/03/03/what-woul...

[esxste]

Well the benefits are that we enjoy the protection of our Human Rights with the right to recourse to a supra-national court. As many UK citizens have done (even if you exclude terrorists).

But yes, holding the Europeans to largely British ideas about human rights is also a great reason not to withdraw.

[Amateurish]

s2art said:

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.

The ECHR is effectively advisory! The court cannot compel the Government to do anything.

Look at the ban on prisoner voting - held by the ECHR to be in breach of human rights. What has the government done? Ignored it.

The HRA is domestic law and binding on UK courts and public bodies.

[BlackLabel]

There will be a vote tomorrow on triggering Article 50.

orderorder.com said:

The government has accepted an amended version of Labour’s motion calling for a debate on their Brexit plan. One catch for Remainers: the government’s amendment calls for Article 50 to be triggered by the end of March. Essentially what Peter Bone called for last week. So there will be a vote on triggering Article 50 tomorrow while the judges are still debating it in the Supreme Court, and then an almighty argument about what details the government is actually going to divulge

http://order-order.com

[alfie2244]

BlackLabel said:

There will be a vote tomorrow on triggering Article 50.

orderorder.com said:

The government has accepted an amended version of Labour’s motion calling for a debate on their Brexit plan. One catch for Remainers: the government’s amendment calls for Article 50 to be triggered by the end of March. Essentially what Peter Bone called for last week. So there will be a vote on triggering Article 50 tomorrow while the judges are still debating it in the Supreme Court, and then an almighty argument about what details the government is actually going to divulge

http://order-order.com

Hopefully someone will explain what is going on...........preferable in layman's terms

[Amateurish]

So why exactly did the government appeal to the supreme court?

[BlackLabel]

alfie2244 said:

Hopefully someone will explain what is going on...........preferable in layman's terms

As I understand it Labour proposed a motion calling on the PM to debate in parliament her plan for Brexit. Dozens of Tory MPs threatened to vote with Labour. To avoid this embarrassment the government then tabled an amendment to the motion where they accepted Labour's demands but at the end of the motion they added a bit calling for article 50 to be triggered before the end of March. The Tory MPs who were threatening to vote with Labour will now vote for the government.

As for what this means in relation to the court case, well perhaps someone more knowledgable can explain that because I'm stumped.

[Einion Yrth]

Amateurish said:

So why exactly did the government appeal to the supreme court?

Because they believed the decision of the High Court to be incorrect? Just a guess, like.

[paulrockliffe]

BlackLabel said:

alfie2244 said:

Hopefully someone will explain what is going on...........preferable in layman's terms

As I understand it Labour proposed a motion calling on the PM to debate in parliament her plan for Brexit. Dozens of Tory MPs threatened to vote with Labour. To avoid this embarrassment the government then tabled an amendment to the motion where they accepted Labour's demands but at the end of the motion they added a bit calling for article 50 to be triggered before the end of March. The Tory MPs who were threatening to vote with Labour will now vote for the government.

As for what this means in relation to the court case, well perhaps someone more knowledgable can explain that because I'm stumped.

It's poker, Labour are being diskheads in asking the Government to scupper it's negotiating position by setting out what they want in the hope that it can be used to engineer some sort of back-track on Brexit. The Government have decided to say OK, but article 50 gets triggered by March as we said. Now Labour are stuffed as their aim is to not have Article 50 triggered at all, but they can't now row back from their amendment and they've lost the Conservative MPs that were on their side.

I'd imagine the Labour amendment will be deliberately vague as Labour's stance is deliberately vague because they have to deal with their voters that voted for Brexit and their leader that voted to leave the EU. The Government will commit to whatever the amendment is, but it won't mean anything in reality and if the Government is committed to anything as a result that it doesn't do or achieve, we're leaving anyway.

Might it nullify the Court Case as Parliament have been consulted and agreed to trigger Article 50?

[Einion Yrth]

paulrockliffe said:

Might it nullify the Court Case as Parliament have been consulted and agreed to trigger Article 50?

There is still a point in law to be decided; the expensive sector like that sort of thing.

[paulrockliffe]

Einion Yrth said:

paulrockliffe said:

Might it nullify the Court Case as Parliament have been consulted and agreed to trigger Article 50?

There is still a point in law to be decided; the expensive sector like that sort of thing.

Sure, I mean might the result be even more irrelevant than it is already?

[Einion Yrth]

paulrockliffe said:

Einion Yrth said:

paulrockliffe said:

Might it nullify the Court Case as Parliament have been consulted and agreed to trigger Article 50?

There is still a point in law to be decided; the expensive sector like that sort of thing.

Sure, I mean might the result be even more irrelevant than it is already?

Imagine that the HoC votes against the proposed bill, and then the SC decides that actually A.50 can be invoked by royal prerogative...

I don't view this conjunction as likely, but I think the BBC used to describe this sort of thing as a "constitutional crisis".

[paulrockliffe]

Wouldn't they just then use Royal Prerogative?

[Einion Yrth]

paulrockliffe said:

Wouldn't they just then use Royal Prerogative?

I'd hope so, but I think you may be missing the subtleties of the potential situation I have outlined. Putting the electorate at odds with the legislature would be unlikely to end well. The issue has been divisive enough already.

[paulrockliffe]

Einion Yrth said:

paulrockliffe said:

Wouldn't they just then use Royal Prerogative?

I'd hope so, but I think you may be missing the subtleties of the potential situation I have outlined. Putting the electorate at odds with the legislature would be unlikely to end well. The issue has been divisive enough already.

The legislature is already at odds with the electorate though.

[djc206]

paulrockliffe said:

The legislature is already at odds with the electorate though.

As is it's job sometimes

[davepoth]

paulrockliffe said:

Einion Yrth said:

paulrockliffe said:

Might it nullify the Court Case as Parliament have been consulted and agreed to trigger Article 50?

There is still a point in law to be decided; the expensive sector like that sort of thing.

Sure, I mean might the result be even more irrelevant than it is already?

The court case is an important (although rather obscure) constitutional point, which could do with clarification even if it gets bypassed this time around. I imagine that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the government it would be quite useful when it comes to ratifying the final deal...

[AJL308]

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..

I'm really not too bothered about the political leanings of the justices. You either believe they'll apply the law or you don't and you believe that they will twist their decision to get whatever outcome they personally want. I'm happy to go with the former, quite honestly.

In any event it makes no difference. This isn't a case about whether the UK is leaving or not. It is leaving, end of story. The case is merely about how our leaving has to be legally effected.

These judges have to write eloquent judgments as to how they came to their individual decisions. People in public life care about their legacies. They spend their professional lives basing their own decisions on decisions and statements made by Judges of old. Once we leave, which we will, the last thing they want is people looking at their decision is 25, 50 or 500 years time, with the benefit of hindsight when no one cares about the EU, and pulling them to bits for saying things that are clearly ludicrous and irrelevant to the legal issues before them.

[AJL308]

BlackLabel said:

alfie2244 said:

Hopefully someone will explain what is going on...........preferable in layman's terms

As I understand it Labour proposed a motion calling on the PM to debate in parliament her plan for Brexit. Dozens of Tory MPs threatened to vote with Labour. To avoid this embarrassment the government then tabled an amendment to the motion where they accepted Labour's demands but at the end of the motion they added a bit calling for article 50 to be triggered before the end of March. The Tory MPs who were threatening to vote with Labour will now vote for the government.

As for what this means in relation to the court case, well perhaps someone more knowledgable can explain that because I'm stumped.

Isn't this just an Early Day Motion? If so it amounts to the square root of absolutely fk all.