Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Well that escalated quickly ....
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Elysium said:
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
For those that actually believe that - many MPs who have been interviewed today will voting to block Brexit.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Elysium said:
Well that escalated quickly ....
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
This is a blatant attempt to usurp the referenda result, no more, no less.Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Reams of pontificating, waffle, and blatant obfuscation will not stop that fact.
In fact, the blatant use of anti democratic, autocrat forces to overturn the will of the electorate. A will endorsed by Parliament, in its granting of such consultation. Parliament asking for an answer to a question they asked of the electorate, they got it.
Get on with it, the alternative to article 50 is not good.
tomw2000 said:
CaptainSlow said:
The majority didn't vote for a Volume 2 which must mean they were happy with remaining in Volume 1... or I think that's how the retarded logic works.
But if we all vote to remain in vol.2 we can work together to change it from the inside?I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
Basically, some rich tart and a bloke in a wig have said 'never mind the Referendum result, it'll all be decided by our elected representatives in Parliament'.Am I over thinking this?
230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
Read about the separation of powers.230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
No change Fella, A50 might get delayed whilst the elite adjust their expensive suits and line up the next money fest at tax payers expense, and after spunking millions of hard earnt (by some) up the wall, we'll still leave the EU, so no change from Vol 1.Life goes on, the bed wetting of the remainers has been put on hold for awhile, we'll give them a brief window of faux celebration as a gesture, then we'll crack on with leaving the shambles of the EU.
Hosenbugler said:
Elysium said:
Well that escalated quickly ....
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
This is a blatant attempt to usurp the referenda result, no more, no less.Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Reams of pontificating, waffle, and blatant obfuscation will not stop that fact.
In fact, the blatant use of anti democratic, autocrat forces to overturn the will of the electorate. A will endorsed by Parliament, in its granting of such consultation. Parliament asking for an answer to a question they asked of the electorate, they got it.
Get on with it, the alternative to article 50 is not good.
andymadmak said:
twoblacklines said:
Article 50 is not going to happen. She never wanted it to happen, she was a strong Remain supporter. They will drag it out until Labor inevitably gets voted back in and hands us back to the EU with even less rights than we had before.
The UK as we know it is finished, this whole debacle has proved we have ZERO power, and that even when our public vote to leave the EU, we can't, because our Goverment won't allow it. End of democracy.
Calm down matey. Exit will happen. It just has to be done legally. These past few hours have been highly enlightening.The UK as we know it is finished, this whole debacle has proved we have ZERO power, and that even when our public vote to leave the EU, we can't, because our Goverment won't allow it. End of democracy.
We have found that Remainers who have spent the past 4 months whingeing every day now actually have the nerve to tell Brexiteers to "suck it up" within a few hours of a result which they interpret as going in their favour. It tells you everything you need to know about the levels of hypocrisy that these people will sink to.
We have also found out that there is rarely as nauseating a sight as a (deluded) Remainer who thinks the result of the Referendum has just been successfully circumvented. - imagine their chagrin when it DOES happen after all.
We have also found out that this part of a simple legal process has yet to run its course. Bizarrely, some Remainers seem to think they have won a great victory, and that membership of their beloved EU is somehow saved - It isn't. We are still leaving. Might take a couple of extra months, but we are still on our way out.
Because, and this is the very simple part that Remainers on here seem to wilfully ignore, the country voted out. The past 4 months have shown how shabby the Remain camp is and, unlike Jawknee I really see no appetite to Remain, rather I see a slightly increased appetite to leave.
The people WILL win, or there will be a lot of unseated MPs come the next election
So many good posts in Vol 1 thought this one was worth repeating in Vol 2
And secondly I hadn't finished this conversation
Jockman said:
B'stard Child said:
Jockman said:
I will be keeping the currency and using the card whenever possible.
Meh not so keen on using cards - prefer cashdon'tbesilly said:
230TE said:
I've been at work. Did I miss something? Had a quick look at the BBC and all I found was a story about the Establishment ruling that the Establishment should (ideally) get what the Establishment wants. That doesn't seem very exciting to me. As far as I can tell we have still voted to leave the EU, unless there has been another referendum today while I was doing welding and stuff. Maybe I'm just too old and thick to understand
No change Fella, A50 might get delayed whilst the elite adjust their expensive suits and line up the next money fest at tax payers expense, and after spunking millions of hard earnt (by some) up the wall, we'll still leave the EU, so no change from Vol 1.Life goes on, the bed wetting of the remainers has been put on hold for awhile, we'll give them a brief window of faux celebration as a gesture, then we'll crack on with leaving the shambles of the EU.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff