Brexit and the Consequences

[forker]

I don't know where you are going with this. The judges are enforcing the law of the land. I've heard, so often,that the judges are there to see that the law is observed. If the people do not like that law then it is up to their representatives ie. MPs, to change it.

Part of the Brexit decision was based on the wish to return decision making to Parliament, instead of having to obey Brussels.

It surprises me that the first test of Parliament is objected to in this way and, not omly that, but the judiciary system is being ostracised, with the judges names and photos on the front pages.

Probably, the best thing is to have new elections but, if that is not wanted, then Parliament must have that vote, otherwise, referendum, or not, the whole thing is illegal.

This was never going to be easy and I repeat, 52% is too narrow a majority.. 48% is a lot of disgruntled people.

52: would win an election so I really can't see how this is any different

 

[forker]

Politicians do not make the rules.

Politicians collectively put forward rules which are debated and passed by Parliament and the House of Lords.

Once a law is passed by Parliament, judges than pass judgement on the rule and application of the law.


What you say is precisely the problem. A handful of politicians lead by Theresa May and her cabinet wishes to negotiate behind closed doors, making up rules on all our behalf, introducing change of law without Parliament getting a look in.


I also think it is abominable that politicians and media acting remarkably in contempt of court with their outrageous remarks belittling British democracy.

The circus is really in town tonight with Guy Fawkes night.

I think what needs to happen is these parliamentary discussions on the terms needs to be private for the obvious reason. We don't want the eu to interfere. The terms need to be agreed and then article 50 invoked

 

[forker]

Cameron could I think have stipulated in advance that it should have been a , say 20% majority, to make it binding.
Another lack of judgement imho and cost him his job.

That isn't in the referendum legislation and why should it be since you don't have the same requirements for general elections so why now, all off a sudden, it's needed.

The reason it isn't legislated is a good one. If you needed such a large majority then you are looking at more coalition governments and those don't work effectively.

 

[barjon]

Politicians in Parlt. do make the rules as I understand it.
The politicians did cover the referendum with an Act. and the judges should respect that.
May is right to keep her negotiating cards close to her chest until the right time to disclose. And not having the remainers making additional problems. They should democratically accept the referendum and stop moaning.

Yes, politicians via Parliament do make the rules and the legislature (judges) interpret and enforce them accordingly. Trouble is they can only work to the words that are written in the acts and if that is poorly drafted then judges have no option but to apply an interpretation that may not be on all fours with the intentions of politicians. If they don't like it the only recourse is to formally change the law.

You also get the usual unintended consequences problem. That's what happened in this case where the referendum act could not override pre-existing legislation. That may be irritating but the judges didn't have much option. If the government had taken the stance that article 50 was not irrevocable once triggered - it's not clear cut in typical EU woolly fashion - then I suspect the judges would have taken a different view.

 

[tomorton]

What's incredible to me is that Theresa May didn't have legal opinion to tell her that if this came to court she would lose and she would be referred back to Parliament for direction. I flat don;t believe she didn't consult her legal advisors and wasn't given this advice.

So, either she was advised this was a parliamentary matter and chose not to care - reckless and boldly acting beyond her legal power.

Or she was advised this and decided the court ruling would be to her political benefit - divisive, wasteful of public money and cynical in the extreme.

To me she doesn't appear a bold and reckless character so I have to think she did acknowledge legal counsel, so she knew she would lose the case but decided the resulting judgement would favour her position politically. And sod the rest of us.

 

[Splitlink]

What's incredible to me is that Theresa May didn't have legal opinion to tell her that if this came to court she would lose and she would be referred back to Parliament for direction. I flat don;t believe she didn't consult her legal advisors and wasn't given this advice.

So, either she was advised this was a parliamentary matter and chose not to care - reckless and boldly acting beyond her legal power.

Or she was advised this and decided the court ruling would be to her political benefit - divisive, wasteful of public money and cynical in the extreme.

To me she doesn't appear a bold and reckless character so I have to think she did acknowledge legal counsel, so she knew she would lose the case but decided the resulting judgement would favour her position politically. And sod the rest of us.

I think that the best way out for her is to have general elections. If this goes through Parliament and the Remainers win.....a whole new pail of worms.

EU wants to get this over and on with its business, as soon as it can. Any new thing that needs a 100% agreement on passing does not need a discontented UK to veto everything.

 

[Pat494]

Trust us Brits to get in such a mess.
Serve us right if we get thrown out of the EU.
The lawyers must be getting exited over so much work in prospect as they gauge Govts etc.

 

[Pat494]

That isn't in the referendum legislation and why should it be since you don't have the same requirements for general elections so why now, all off a sudden, it's needed.

The reason it isn't legislated is a good one. If you needed such a large majority then you are looking at more coalition governments and those don't work effectively.

It is such a momentous and costly business, except to lawyers, that some certainty needs to be factored in imo. A 2 % majority is too small and can evaporate overnight.

 

[timsk]

What's incredible to me is that Theresa May didn't have legal opinion to tell her that if this came to court she would lose and she would be referred back to Parliament for direction. I flat don;t believe she didn't consult her legal advisors and wasn't given this advice.

So, either she was advised this was a parliamentary matter and chose not to care - reckless and boldly acting beyond her legal power.

Or she was advised this and decided the court ruling would be to her political benefit - divisive, wasteful of public money and cynical in the extreme.

To me she doesn't appear a bold and reckless character so I have to think she did acknowledge legal counsel, so she knew she would lose the case but decided the resulting judgement would favour her position politically. And sod the rest of us.

Hi Tom,
Good points; ones which are further complicated by the appeal that Theresa May and the government are - so we are told - going to make against the High Court ruling. If the judges ruling is as black and white as we have been lead to believe (and the remainers claim), then there will be no grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court. She will be wasting her own time (and ours). Her legal team must, surely, have advised her on this. So, if the appeal goes ahead, it means that at the very least there are some grey areas - some question marks - over the judges ruling last week. And if she wins the appeal, then it will call into question the impartiality of the judicial system and lend weight to the battering the judges received from some quarters of the press.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Hi Tom,
Good points; ones which are further complicated by the appeal that Theresa May and the government are - so we are told - going to make against the High Court ruling. If the judges ruling is as black and white as we have been lead to believe (and the remainers claim), then there will be no grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court. She will be wasting her own time (and ours). Her legal team must, surely, have advised her on this. So, if the appeal goes ahead, it means that at the very least there are some grey areas - some question marks - over the judges ruling last week. And if she wins the appeal, then it will call into question the impartiality of the judicial system and lend weight to the battering the judges received from some quarters of the press.
Tim.

I think the key is whether triggering article 50 is irrevocable or not (typically legal opinions are divided since it is not clear in the article). The Government took the line in the High Court that it was irrevocable which left the judges in difficulty since that meant Parliament would not have the say that our constitutional arrangements require. Had the Government taken the line that it was revocable (..or the case can be made that it it was ) then the judges may well have been satisfied since Parliament would still have the potential to make the final decision .

 

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,
Good points; ones which are further complicated by the appeal that Theresa May and the government are - so we are told - going to make against the High Court ruling. If the judges ruling is as black and white as we have been lead to believe (and the remainers claim), then there will be no grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court. She will be wasting her own time (and ours). Her legal team must, surely, have advised her on this. So, if the appeal goes ahead, it means that at the very least there are some grey areas - some question marks - over the judges ruling last week. And if she wins the appeal, then it will call into question the impartiality of the judicial system and lend weight to the battering the judges received from some quarters of the press.
Tim.

Indeed, this is a mess.
Of course, everyone says they will appeal right after losing a case. Some actually do so - but then quietly drop it when the papers have been submitted to the higher court.

Its hard now to see a line of events that would give the UK a strong hand in dealing with the EU post-Article 50. Then again, if the PM's team return from Brussels in 2-3 years time with breadcrumbs from the EU's table she can always blame the Remainers. And I think the key question Theresa May will be concerned with is what will the outcome mean for the Conservative Parliamentary party - that I am sure that was David Cameron's only concern and is now her only concern. Better (she will think) to be the party in power in a weaker country than to be the opposition in a stronger one.

 

[Splitlink]

I think the key is whether triggering article 50 is irrevocable or not (typically legal opinions are divided since it is not clear in the article). The Government took the line in the High Court that it was irrevocable which left the judges in difficulty since that meant Parliament would not have the say that our constitutional arrangements require. Had the Government taken the line that it was revocable (..or the case can be made that it it was ) then the judges may well have been satisfied since Parliament would still have the potential to make the final decision .

I thought that the EU will accept Art50. as legally final. The country leaves two years afterwards. No ifs or buts. Negotiations completed, or not.

Once that is signed, whether it was legal, or not, will be a UK problem so, get it right.

After all, the EU has rights as well as the UK. Otherwise this will go on for ever.

 

[tar]

The Scottish cross-bench peer who wrote Article 50 - the procedure by which the UK would leave the EU - believed it was "not irrevocable".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

 

[counter_violent]

I think this is all heading towards an early general election where we should see Labour smashed out of the park, especially if UKIP can harness the north.

The Europeans (on both sides of the divide) will be watching all this with great interest. The elites, to see if they can maintain their grip, and the rebels to see if it can be smashed apart.

 

[barjon]

The Scottish cross-bench peer who wrote Article 50 - the procedure by which the UK would leave the EU - believed it was "not irrevocable".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

Which takes me back to the poor drafting point. It matters not a toss what the Scottish peer meant when he wrote it, all that matters are the words that were actually laid down since it is those that the judiciary must work from.

That'd be some delaying tactic if someone appealed to the European Court to determine whether it was irrevocable or not - drag on for years that would

 

[counter_violent]

I think that the best way out for her is to have general elections. If this goes through Parliament and the Remainers win.....a whole new pail of worms.

EU wants to get this over and on with its business, as soon as it can. Any new thing that needs a 100% agreement on passing does not need a discontented UK to veto everything.

As usual, you forget that there are as many malcontents scattered across Europe as there are in the UK. It will not be business as usual for the EU machine, so perhaps it's time to deal with the new reality.

 

[Pat494]

It is a pity I think that the defects of the EU were not corrected in time to stop it falling apart.

 

[Splitlink]

As usual, you forget that there are as many malcontents scattered across Europe as there are in the UK. It will not be business as usual for the EU machine, so perhaps it's time to deal with the new reality.

Don?t you worry about our malcontents! Crikey! You want everything! Haven?t you got enough of your own?

Yes, you are right, you'd better deal with the new reality.

 

[counter_violent]

Don?t you worry about our malcontents! Crikey! You want everything! Haven?t you got enough of your own?

Yes, you are right, you'd better deal with the new reality.

Actually, I and the other 52% want nothing to do with it.

As usual, it's the Brits leading the charge and liberating Europe.

 

[Atilla]

Government passed an Act, an Act of Parliament, which gave the British people the right to make the decision about whether we stayed or left. That is NOT advisory


One the official government leaflet

"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

Cameron made it crystal clear in the run up that a vote to leave would result in article 50 being triggered. It's not a case of mps now having the power to revoke the triggering of the article. They have a duty to implement the democratic decision by the people. The only question now is what that relationship is going to be. Staying in the single market is really no different to never having voted at all. We would still need to apply EU policy as part of the rules and accept the endless supply of low wage immigrants flooding the country. In my opinion we won't be able to negotiate remaining in the market without the freedom of movement. Therefore I don't think we will be part of the single market. All the government is going to do is decide on the terms we present the eu. The eu is going to tell us to p!55 off and whatever the mps decide will ultimately be meaningless. The only way forward is a complete severing of membership.

Farage acknowledging referendum WAS "legally" advisory in this clip below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37861487



And here arguing against Parliament having a say as if the Referendum was binding and then yielding to very well placed arguments and points by Gina Miller on having the constitutional change to make the Referendum binding by Parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37886882


Alleluia :clap:

Summary!

Referendum not binding.

Referendum ONLY advisory.

Bring on Parliament