Court Rules Against Government: Article 50

[Penelope]

With us as the tender woman.

 

Only ridicule by just over half the population some 10% of which would possible change there mind though...

Wouldn't it be Ironic if it subsequently had to go to the European Court of Justice. I can hear the classic Al Wilson track playing in the background " The Snake"

[oowee]

We share a mutual friend Gordon, I've met him and conversed with him a couple of times ..he's uber intelligent

I have met him too, for dinner. He is one of the giant brains and a nice guy to be with.

[guest1957]

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.

Even the Govt admits the Supreme Court is unlikely to change the outcome. The only fault lies with the drafting of the Act itself. Our constitution can't be undermined by poor draftsmanship. Prerogative powers just can't be used for what Theresa wants to use them for. Paras 105 onward of the judgment are worth a read.

[achosenman]

Simple the law of the land is the law. It has nothing to do with democracy the law is the way our society is structured If we want to go around the law every time we did not agree with it then the mob rules. If you do not like the law then lobby your MP to change it. If he does not then do not vote for him at the next election , vote for an MP who will agree with your point of view. . That is the way democracy works not by mob rule.

 

So remind me again how Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty? Surely this latest ruling means that it was in fact unlawful.

 

Since they had trawl back as far as 1610 for precedence, someone should challenge the original signing from 43 years ago. Parliament should never have powers to cede English sovereignty

[guest1957]

Parliament should never have powers to cede English sovereignty

Parliament is sovereign and can therefore do as it chooses. Prior to that monarchy was essentially absolute, a return to which I'm sure you are not advocating.

 

If you don't like that then you could move to Glarus or travel back to ancient Athens and indulge in direct democracy. Lots of meetings to attend though...

[AVB]

Even the Govt admits the Supreme Court is unlikely to change the outcome. The only fault lies with the drafting of the Act itself. Our constitution can't be undermined by poor draftsmanship. Prerogative powers just can't be used for what Theresa wants to use them for. Paras 105 onward of the judgment are worth a read.

She isn't using prerogative powers willy nilly. We had a referendum and the majority gave May the mandate. She is executing that mandate. Job done.

[sportsbob]

Having not read all the posts in this topic forgive me for asking these questions, if the foreigners (EU officials) did not want us to leave then surly they would have found a loophole to block things by now and is it possible to be expelled form the EU ?. Does anyone know how many vehicles it would take to fill the roads within the M25 I have just done a little off the cuff math, the population of the UK is 64 million of which approximately 50 mil can vote so if 25 mil voted out and only 20% of those went to London for the day could you get 5 mil cars inside the M25

 

Apparently 17 mill voted out so even 20% of those would be 3.4 mil

Edited November 4, 2016 by sportsbob

[guest1957]

She isn't using prerogative powers willy nilly. We had a referendum and the majority gave May the mandate. She is executing that mandate. Job done.

But we can't make exceptions to strongly formed (and hard won) constitutional principles. In any event, May only has a mandate for some sort of Brexit, not for the hard Brexit she appears to be pushing for. A good going over by parliament will force her to actually come up with some ideas beyond "Brexit means Brexit", which is about as informative as "sausage means sausage".

[Aled]

Sorry guys don't have time to read all these posts, but a quick question.

One comment I kept hearing the leavers say pre referendum, was "lets return power to Westminster" my interpretation of this situation is that power on how we leave the EU not if we leave the EU is being taken by parliament. Doesn't that tick one of the boxes the leavers kept banging on about? i.e. democracy back to Westminster?

Just a question.

Cheers

Aled

[achosenman]

Sorry guys don't have time to read all these posts, but a quick question.

One comment I kept hearing the leavers say pre referendum, was "lets return power to Westminster" my interpretation of this situation is that power on how we leave the EU not if we leave the EU is being taken by parliament. Doesn't that tick one of the boxes the leavers kept banging on about? i.e. democracy back to Westminster?

Just a question.

Cheers

Aled

 

No because the majority in Parliament don't want to leave. The gravy train is just too good to pass up. It's the rest of the hoi polloi that pay the true price of the ruling elites avarice.

[timps]

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.

But that's my whole point, if the case had been won it meant the incumbent prime minister could change any law without a referendum.

 

I totally agree the case was brought to block leaving the EU, I have no doubt of that whatsoever, however the judges hands were tied is what I am saying.

 

The law says you need an act of parliament with MP's voting to change law, the question asked of the judges was this a yes or no.

 

Judges cannot change or make law to say it's ' it's ok to change law without an act but only if you hold a referendum first'.

 

Simply put if the government can change laws without an act of parliament they can change laws without a referendum as well.

 

Like I said blame the MP's who made the law, blame the people that brought it to court but not the judges.

 

A government not answering to parliament is a very bad thing and I don't want to live in a totalitarian state.

 

For the record I do think article 50 should be triggered just not by giving the prime minister ultimate power.

[achosenman]

Parliament is sovereign and can therefore do as it chooses. Prior to that monarchy was essentially absolute, a return to which I'm sure you are not advocating.

 

If you don't like that then you could move to Glarus or travel back to ancient Athens and indulge in direct democracy. Lots of meetings to attend though...

 

Rather than flippant comments like telling me to move to Switzerland, you might address the rather serious question posed. Are their limits on Parliament's power? Could Chamberlin have declared Hitler a good guy and gifted the UK to Germany?

 

Gordon Brown used the prerogative to sign the Lisbon Treaty, how does this ruling affect that?

[panoma1]

Edited!

Edited November 4, 2016 by panoma1

[panoma1]

But that's my whole point, if the case had been won it meant the incumbent prime minister could change any law without a referendum.

I totally agree the case was brought to block leaving the EU, I have no doubt of that whatsoever, however the judges hands were tied is what I am saying.

The law says you need an act of parliament with MP's voting to change law, the question asked of the judges was this a yes or no.

Judges cannot change or make law to say it's ' it's ok to change law without an act but only if you hold a referendum first'.

Simply put if the government can change laws without an act of parliament they can change laws without a referendum as well.

Like I said blame the MP's who made the law, blame the people that brought it to court but not the judges.

A government not answering to parliament is a very bad thing and I don't want to live in a totalitarian state.

For the record I do think article 50 should be triggered just not by giving the prime minister ultimate power.

^

^

^

Can't disagree with this!

[Vince Green]

So remind me again how Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty? Surely this latest ruling means that it was in fact unlawful.

I think a lot of people have always believed that was unlawful. It was said at the time and has been questioned many times since. Maybe that's the way to go? We don't have to leave because we were never in it

Edited November 4, 2016 by Vince Green

[guest1957]

 

Rather than flippant comments like telling me to move to Switzerland, you might address the rather serious question posed. Are their limits on Parliament's power? Could Chamberlin have declared Hitler a good guy and gifted the UK to Germany?

 

Gordon Brown used the prerogative to sign the Lisbon Treaty, how does this ruling affect that?

Parliament is sovereign. That means that what parliament says, goes (generally provided that where there is a conflict of laws, this should be explicitly recognised in the later act and dealt with).

 

The Lisbon Treaty was given effect by the ECA 1972

[Gordon R]

Timps - wholeheartedly agree.

 

The Remain camp are a shifty bunch - they have no intention of leaving. If Parliament vote to trigger Article 50, they will start moaning about something else. They have contempt for the electorate.

[achosenman]

Parliament is sovereign. That means that what parliament says, goes (generally provided that where there is a conflict of laws, this should be explicitly recognised in the later act and dealt with).

 

The Lisbon Treaty was given effect by the ECA 1972

 

Again, I didn't think that was strictly true . I thought there were laws/rules that Parliament could not subvert or override. Eg in a moment of collective madness Parliament voting to make Jeremy Corbin a lifelong dictator or other such nonsense. I remember reading about it many years ago.

 

What this ruling means is that

1. UKIP have been revived.
2. That a very irate electorate will decimate all the other parties.
3. That Genghis khan himself would be elected if he stood as a Ukip candidate.

If the remoaners think they are winning, they're deluding themselves. The gloves haven't come off yet. The electorate will not play nice at the ballot box, regardless of the spin put out by those with vested interests.

 

I predict some interesting times ahead.

Edited November 4, 2016 by achosenman

[Paul1440]

But that's my whole point, if the case had been won it meant the incumbent prime minister could change any law without a referendum.

 

I totally agree the case was brought to block leaving the EU, I have no doubt of that whatsoever, however the judges hands were tied is what I am saying.

 

The law says you need an act of parliament with MP's voting to change law, the question asked of the judges was this a yes or no.

 

Judges cannot change or make law to say it's ' it's ok to change law without an act but only if you hold a referendum first'.

 

Simply put if the government can change laws without an act of parliament they can change laws without a referendum as well.

 

Like I said blame the MP's who made the law, blame the people that brought it to court but not the judges.

 

A government not answering to parliament is a very bad thing and I don't want to live in a totalitarian state.

 

For the record I do think article 50 should be triggered just not by giving the prime minister ultimate power.

Agree.. you can't mess around with a political system that has worked since the Mid 17th century when it was decided to take power away from an individual (the King)

It can only be changed if there is proven to be a better system. There's no better anyehere else and many much worse.

When we joined the EU it was also passed by a vote on westminster.

The only way to guarantee the vote to leave was to vote for the MP in your area who strongly felt the same about leaving.

If a referendum was held on everything then due to the distribution of people anywhere outside the south East may as well pack up their bags and leave. Why eould they vote for a "Northern Powerhouse" whatever that is?

[AVB]

So it appears that the referendum was a complete waste of money and was no more than an opinion poll. The people voted out (I voted in by the way) and now Parliament and The Lords can do whatever they want.

 

We need a good riot and uprising to sort it out. The Government appear to listen to terrorists. Now I am not supporting that but you can see how it happens. This isn't going to end well.

[panoma1]

Timps - wholeheartedly agree.The Remain camp are a shifty bunch - they have no intention of leaving. If Parliament vote to trigger Article 50, they will start moaning about something else. They have contempt for the electorate.

"Contempt for the electorate"..........Exemplified by that fat slug Kenneth Clarke!

[achosenman]

So it appears that the referendum was a complete waste of money and was no more than an opinion poll. The people voted out (I voted in by the way) and now Parliament and The Lords can do whatever they want.

 

We need a good riot and uprising to sort it out. The Government appear to listen to terrorists. Now I am not supporting that but you can see how it happens. This isn't going to end well.

 

I disagree. Parliament voted for the referendum. I.e. they asked the electorate who were eligible to answer the question, for an instruction. They got an answer. (Albeit not the one they wanted) I would argue that Parliament has already had a vote, let the government of the day get on with it

[four-wheel-drive]

I was just listening to the guy who financed this court case and he is such a lire he says that he wants us to get on with the brexit but at the same time he wants us to stay in the single market and keep free travel for workers so all that we will end up with is being out of the EU.

 

Ie have no say on what they are doing but we still have to pay them and put up with all of the dross it that is how it ends up we was better off remaining in it at least then we have a small say in what goes on having said that I think that she should just trigger 50 and just tell them all to get stuffed.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I thought it was Gina Miller

[longspoon]

A cornerstone of the leave vote is extract ourselves from the single market and stop the free movement of foreigners into this country...the people have spoken...accept the democratic vote to leave and get on with it !