panoma1 Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 That was to overcome legislation being blocked by the House of Lords, not a legality. Sounds right!........but maybe an option in the future if the government have to get the terms of brexit through the commons (unlikely!) and if it reaches the house of lords, because most of them are remailers and I can see them blocking it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 My view. 1) it's all about interpretation. 2) when it goes to appeal the judges will take a different interpretation and the government will win. If not then we need a revolution. If people feel strongly enough about it they should storm parliament. Let's have some blood running through the streets and then perhaps people will realise that it is serious. Or we just moan about it. I fear blood running through the streets may not be far away,if our politicians continue to deny the public by patronisingly telling them that hey know best when most of them are failures and just feather their own nests. You can push the British public a long way,but they will eventually push back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuji Shooter Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 May as well open his old account backup, been in every political thread since he cameback! BRING BACK FM!! Lol The sound of an approaching hoof and he straight out from under the bridge every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) At the end of the day most MPs want to keep their jobs, their principles are therefore negotiable. Political tarts Look at the example of (I think it is) Romford South. Apparantly one of the biggest Brexit votes as a percentages in the country but their MP is a staunch remainer. She's going to have to do some serious thinking isn't she? I wonder how many people realise yet that this I going to divide the country in ways that haven't yet been imagined I fear blood running through the streets may not be far away,if our politicians continue to deny the public by patronisingly telling them that hey know best when most of them are failures and just feather their own nests. You can push the British public a long way,but they will eventually push back. Edited November 3, 2016 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garygreengrass Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 In simple terms the MPs want to keep the EU cash cow paying there wages. THE PEOPLE VOTE OUT SO LET`S GET OUT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Adge Cutler doesn't do politics Yawn....that's been done 12 bore try and catch up and think of something original....there's a good chappie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Yawn....that's been done 12 bore try and catch up and think of something original....there's a good chappie. Hahaha that's what I like to see, a man who stands by his morels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 "Let's have some blood running through the streets and then perhaps people will realise that it is serious. Or we just moan about it" No one, who has ever experienced civil conflict, would wish this upon their country. Well, perhaps a fool would. The judgement was arrived at by the LCJ for England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and a very senior judge. It is a relatively short judgement and a model of clarity. Hard to see the Supreme Court overturning it. In essence the court reaffirmed that Parliament was sovereign. Is this not what those wishing to leave the EU wanted? The PM has a small parliamentary majority and is vulnerable. She is understandably wary of introducing legislation allowing the triggering of Art. 50. Surely the solution is to accept the judgement of the Court and have a general election to get the necessary majority to pass the required legislation. Well said... Also very interesting what David Dimbleby said earlier on TV if anyone else heard it. basically any referendum is just a mechanism for gauging the opinion of the populous and still has to receive the ultimate sanction of parliament. Nobody from either side of the house told us it was just a glorified opinion poll ! Hahaha that's what I like to see, a man who stands by his morels. What have mushrooms got to do with it. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I bet David Dimbleby is a remainer! He has made many subtle anti Brexit comments since the country voted out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Adge - the day David Dimbleby starts speaking for the populous, I will plait sawdust. Out of touch with reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokersmith Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Why wasn't this legal point forseen in the Brexit camp's plans? Ah yes, I remember .... there was no plan. That's why it is a mess, and will continue to be a mess ........ and in the foreseeable future negatively impact many folk who voted for good reason to leave. The mistakes that will be made getting us out will take a generation to fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Why wasn't this legal point forseen in the Brexit camp's plans? Ah yes, I remember .... there was no plan. That's why it is a mess, and will continue to be a mess ........ and in the foreseeable future negatively impact many folk who voted for good reason to leave. The mistakes that will be made getting us out will take a generation to fix. Indeed I really feel for the young uns who wanted to remain on the whole, who now have to pick up the pieces.. I think we old farts have been rather selfish. ! Adge - the day David Dimbleby starts speaking for the populous, I will plait sawdust. Out of touch with reality. I think you do him an injustice Gordon... He knows much more about it than the protagonists on either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Adge - I very much doubt that. I never saw him as very bright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Adge - I very much doubt that. I never saw him as very bright. We share a mutual friend Gordon, I've met him and conversed with him a couple of times ..he's uber intelligent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Adge - much as I respect your opinion - and I do, although I disagree with a fair chunk - I think your friend is too easily impressed. He peddles an image. If he is bright - not in my league - he hides it well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Adge - I very much doubt that. I never saw him as very bright. A degree in PPE from Christ Church, Oxford, would suggest otherwise but maybe you know better. As an undergraduate he was also president of the JCR and a member of the (slightly infamous) Bullingdon Club demonstrates a certain stamina in the liver department. Merely to have survived to graduate suggests that there must be something up top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I do know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I do know better. Your qualification to judge being? Watching Question Time, is it a coincidence that Sajid Javid MP looks like The Hood of Thunderbirds fame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I am what I am and judge him to be not very bright. The Hood - you have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) Please dont blame the judges on this one, if they had allowed the sectary of sates wishes then precedent would have been set that means the prime minister of the day could use the Royal prerogative to overturn any law or right without recourse to parliament. Simply put if the prime minister wakes up one morning and decides to outlaw gun ownership then no need to lobby your MP to fight or a debate in the commons on the finer points of the issues the prime minster of the day can just do it. Your anger should be at the MPs that didnt make the referendum legally binding in the first place instead of advisory or the people that brought the case to court and asked for a judgement. Once the question is asked in court the judges have to rule and we are stuck with the answer for a president. If they answered yes its ok then ANY law or right could be overturned at a whim of the incumbent prime minister on a royal prerogative no recourse to parliament precedent set. The referendum should have had some legal legislation not just advisory then we wouldnt be in this mess, the problem was call me Dave thought he would win so he didnt think of the consequences. The legal judgement was right even though in the sense of the referendum it was wrong if that makes sense. You got to love our legal system but the judges got it right legally just wrong morally Edited November 4, 2016 by timps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 Times is correct. In cases like this, a court is ruling on issues of fact, not 'taking sides' or 'undermining democracy'. They have to apply the law as it stands and if you bother to read the judgement rather than listen to the hysterical rhetoric you would understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 Times is correct. In cases like this, a court is ruling on issues of fact, not 'taking sides' or 'undermining democracy'. They have to apply the law as it stands and if you bother to read the judgement rather than listen to the hysterical rhetoric you would understand this. This discussion got there eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 Please dont blame the judges on this one, if they had allowed the sectary of sates wishes then precedent would have been set that means the prime minister of the day could use the Royal prerogative to overturn any law or right without recourse to parliament. Simply put if the prime minister wakes up one morning and decides to outlaw gun ownership then no need to lobby your MP to fight or a debate in the commons on the finer points of the issues the prime minster of the day can just do it. Your anger should be at the MPs that didnt make the referendum legally binding in the first place instead of advisory or the people that brought the case to court and asked for a judgement. Once the question is asked in court the judges have to rule and we are stuck with the answer for a president. If they answered yes its ok then ANY law or right could be overturned at a whim of the incumbent prime minister on a royal prerogative no recourse to parliament precedent set. The referendum should have had some legal legislation not just advisory then we wouldnt be in this mess, the problem was call me Dave thought he would win so he didnt think of the consequences. The legal judgement was right even though in the sense of the referendum it was wrong if that makes sense. You got to love our legal system but the judges got it right legally just wrong morally Last time I checked there had not been a national referendum on gun ownership so what has that got to do with it. People who say that this is just 'the process we need to go through and nothing will change' are deluded. This is a clear attempt to block us exiting the EU. The good thing is that on appeal a different set of judges will interpret things differently. If not then I predict a quick General Election or riots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) The MPs won't block it, they haven't got the guts, even if they wanted to, because they know it would trigger a general election if they did. The Lords now that's another matter. There are over 100 lib dems in the house of Lords and they are very much more influential than they should be Edited November 4, 2016 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.