Jump to content

Brexit ruling


mint
 Share

Recommended Posts

No government is above the law though. Governments make laws but then they have to abide by them. What surprises me is that the government are appealing, as should it be put to parliament they are almost certain to win it at the moment, since the labour party are not opposing it. I can only assume it is because it actually suits TM to play for time and have a nice convenient group to blame it on. I see the pound rallied on the news!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was precisely what I suggested some time back, on these postings re Brexit.

BTW, Idun; it actually IS democracy, since citizens cede power to elected MPs.

In order for May to act outside parliament, she would have to try to use the devolved power of delegated authority under a Royal Prerogative: usually only used in serious circumstances if, where and when Britain faces imminent danger.

I would therefore posit any such action by May, or indeed any other PM would be ultra vires. (outside the power).

Here problem after a vote, would be of course, the Lords: however after three attempts then she can invoke the Parliament Act as a guillotine and ramrod the legislation through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practical terms this is unlikely to change anything since the MPs will vote in favour of the referendum result whatever they really think.

In principle I think it is very important, since it affirms that Parliament is sovereign and such an important issue cannot be decided without debate.

What would be the point of 'taking back control' from Europe only to deny it to our elected representitives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="crabtree"]The decision of

the High Court is not about Brexit, it is about the sovereignty of

parliament – the very institution that the Brexiteers claim

has been debased by the EU.[/quote]

Excepting, of course, the core reality, of the judiciary being stuffed to the gills by Lefty-Liberal judges from 1997 onwards......

The day of such luminaries  as the late great jurist, one time Master of the Rolls, Baron Alfred Thompson (Tom) Denning, are, so sadly, gone and passed.

Denning's awesome grasp of both statute and precedent, plus his exemplarly prescient judgements are gone, forever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wasn't that long prior to this that Cameron won a general election, IF we give the power to the MP's to do everything on our behalf, why the referendum??????

If the stay in had won, I would have had to accept it. As it is, it didn't and this is simply not right on so many levels.

Doesn't help that I don't trust judges any more and my MP is a very poor representative as far as I am concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="idun"]IF we give the power to the MP's to do everything on our behalf, why the referendum?????? [/quote]

It was a sop to the electors, where Dave and his gang were pretending the collective and majority will and view of the people would be abided by...

Anyone who actually believed this in the first place, needs urgently to consult a good analyst!

It is on a similar level to believing funds managers act in the very best interests of the investors...

However, all that said, this, I believe is put up or shut time for the professional self-interested political class. Why? Since whilst the Tory party hold a slender majority (15) when it comes to a vote, many Tory remainers will vote against the whips orders; plus most Labour MPs, all SNP; and the rest of the motley crew of assorted misfits. Including the nasty little worm, Carswell, nominally UKIP.

The Government could well fall on its sword on this issue.

At which point, the problems start!

In that event, it is a gift out of the blue for UKIP; which is an interesting small thought?

Mainly since a majority of voters have been suffering political fatigue, growing distrust in he supposed democratic system, and, in many case, total apathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that the Labour party supports Brexit

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “This ruling underlines the need

for the government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without

delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the

European Union
. But there must be transparency and accountability to

parliament on the terms of Brexit.”

I cannot understand why people cannot see that this is about "transparency and accountability to

parliament on the terms of Brexit.”

not about reversing the referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court decision was not about whether we implement Brexit or not. It was about how we implement Brexit. In the unlikely event that Parliament decides not to invoke Article 50 then there would be a General Election and the new Parliament would consider the matter again. That way we would know the irrevocable decision was indeed the will of the British People.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rabbie"]The court decision was not about whether we implement Brexit or not. It was about how we implement Brexit. In the unlikely event that Parliament decides not to invoke Article 50 then there would be a General Election and the new Parliament would consider the matter again. That way we would know the irrevocable decision was indeed the will of the British People.[/quote]

Not quite, actually, Rabbie.

If May's government lost the vote (which I believe they must, logically and numerically, as already stated), then it would take a further proposal of a "Vote of No Confidence" in the present government. Upon which all MPs would have to vote again.

In which case the anti-Brexit Tory MPs and others, would vote against the proposition.

Worth remembering, May only enjoys a majority of just 15.

Of course, there may be Tory MPs who wish to destroy their political career and be consigned to the back benches forever (or at least as long as they might have until either the local party honchos kick 'em out, or the next GE); highly doubtful I suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I am so sick of it all.

IF the vote had gone the other way, then I would still be advocating that the EU had a boot up the backside and stopped it's federalism and money wasting and got it's act together. My son still lives in France and for him, that is exactly what I would like.

Isn't the EU like local councils in the UK, really ran by bureaucrats who often do not care, not know their coudres from the culs and get paid a fortune, the elected councellors, are for little in the grand scheme of things?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll need a bit more stamina than that Idun. Court ruling or not the discussions and debates are going to go on and on..whatever the eventual outcome. It was always going to be thus whatever the result of the referendum.. a nation split 50/50, no plan or even understanding of even how to go about leaving or the consequences.

The discussions will last many years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time someone was held responsible for a complete waste of time and taxpayers money, this situation cannot go away.

Strange how the word advisory has just popped up. Also when cam said that there would be a referendum on the EU there was no mention of advisory or pre renogotian as he brought up about 6 months later.

I honestly feel that i should stop paying rates and taxes.

What is the point of voting. Its not a true democracy i know but i didnt know that it was as rotten an corrupt as this (alegedly)

Its the old story heads they win, tails we loose.

Bring on the revolution.

What is the point of voting or doing anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pip24 the referendum was always advisory and you can check that out by looking at the legislation. I did have a link to it but I can't find it. People have been pointing this out for ages but a lot of people have been putting their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen. Now the high court has said it as well.

It doesn't mean Brexit won't happen but just that parliament must be allowed to discuss and vote on it. I don't really see why that is so controversial. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rabbie"]Gluestock, Ken Clarke tonight stated he thought it extremely unlikely that Parliament would block the invocation of Article 50. I suspect that he knows more about the mood at Westminster than you do[/quote]

Really?

"But the uncertainty created by the High Court judgment was underlined by

Tory former chancellor and ardent pro-European Ken Clarke, who told BBC

Newsnight he would move to block invoking Article 50, saying: "I will

vote against it. I shall stick to my guns. I'm not going to cast a

hypocritical vote.""

Here:

"Scotland's

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says the High Court judgement on Article

50 is "hugely significant" and underlines "the total chaos and

confusion at the heart of the UK government".

She says the government's refusal to allow a vote in the Commons exposes the fact it does "not have a coherent position".

Ms

Sturgeon argued that as Scotland voted to remain in the EU, her job is

"to protect our place in Europe and the single market as far as I

possibly can".

SNP MPs "will not vote for anything that undermines the will of the Scottish people", she added."

Here:

Clarke always was and always will be a Eurofile; he was the clown who demanded Britain join the Euro - at the worst possible time, too... he is also an arch federalist and therefore not a patriot.

Sturgeon? Well she and her motley crew will always vote against the government as she has little else to offer her voters than the illusory dreams of an independent Scotland and a continuance of EU membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...