mossberg-operator Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Are you joking? The EU does not ride roughshod over our laws ? You do live in the UK I presume? We have those 1000 year old laws you mentioned,but EU law can override any of them, if it deems it fit to do so. And it has done on a regular basis. I dont know if youve noticed the EUs attacks lately on private firearm ownership? Or the constant battle to deport dangerous foreign criminals,or to be able to bar entry to dangerous foreign criminals. Weights and measures ? The majority of the people want out the EU ,the government has to facilitate that, or face the wrath of those people. What part of that do you not understand? Let me reassure You that the UK law makers got similar goals on private firearm ownership.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Let me reassure You that the UK law makers got similar goals on private firearm ownership.... Have you got a source for that information, as you are in a position to re-assure us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 like in an earlier post, you dident know any of your first paragraph at the time of the vote, no-one did, there are many at the top who know that it wasn't advisory, and that this has 'come to light' after the event, in other words, the goalposts were moved to alter the outcome, its called cheating. I give up. I don't understand what you mean by "there are many at the top who know that it wasn't advisory, and that this has come to light after the event". The government made a decision in 2010, in answer to a question from the Lords, that NO referendum would be binding. That's a matter of record, NOT a moving of the goalposts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 no fantasy, no way, literally millions of words spoken on the referendum in the run-up, not one mention of the word advisory. You know that, like I do, but you are playing smart after the event. Is there no way that fact and reason can prevail upon you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 100% on the money. You too are 100% on the money. You can aspire to my level, but I suspect you will never make it. D'you know, I'm immensely comforted by that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Anyone who says now that the referendum was only advisory, not binding or whatever,, is living in cloud cuckoo land a line was drawn in the sand that day and it can never be undrawn, you can't turn back the clock Its a fact now, its done Edited January 25, 2017 by Vince Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Anyone who says now that the referendum was only advisory, not binding or whatever,, is living in cloud cuckoo land a line was drawn in the sand that day and it can never be undrawn, you can't turn back the clock Its a fact now, its done If our Brexit vote is overturned I will never vote again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 If our Brexit vote is overturned I will never vote again. Forgive me but how would that teach them a lesson? The Labour Party has discovered that a small organised group of people can hijack democracy. IMHO it means we need to vote more, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 The fact that all these law cases/appeals are doing on suggest the referendun was more 'advisory' as it was not given the legal framework before the vote took place. Just like this talked about/threatened indy ref 2, at moment it would be nothing more than an expensive poll unless westminster agrees to it and puts thelegal framework in place wot ever the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 The Judges voted 8 to 3. There must have been some legal argument for the 3 judges to vote with the government ? If this had been a jury vote the case would have been dismissed or a retrial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) The Judges voted 8 to 3. There must have been some legal argument for the 3 judges to vote with the government ? If this had been a jury vote the case would have been dismissed or a retrial. Jurys determine matters of fact, not matters of law, so the analogy cannot be made. Given the number of justices sitting some dissent was likely, but it isn't considered, legally, to be a tight decision. The different reasoning can be found at paragraphs 153 to 283 of the judgment. Edited January 25, 2017 by guest1957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRDS Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Jurys determine matters of fact, not matters of law, so the analogy cannot be made. Given the number of justices sitting some dissent was likely, but it isn't considered, legally, to be a tight decision. The different reasoning can be found at paragraphs 153 to 283 of the judgment. Or given the number who are Europhiles there was never going to be a different result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Anyone who says now that the referendum was only advisory, not binding or whatever,, is living in cloud cuckoo land a line was drawn in the sand that day and it can never be undrawn, you can't turn back the clock Its a fact now, its done But still there are those who try to ignore it. call it binding, call it advisory, any of my friends or family knew exactly what they wanted. Only idiots like Tim Fallon say there isn't a person in the country who knew that the vote would mean leaving the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Have you got a source for that information, as you are in a position to re-assure us? No source. Only gut feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Jurys determine matters of fact, not matters of law, so the analogy cannot be made. Given the number of justices sitting some dissent was likely, but it isn't considered, legally, to be a tight decision. The different reasoning can be found at paragraphs 153 to 283 of the judgment. You never answered my question. What would have happened if Mrs Miller & co hadnt bought the action ? Would some other public spirited person,with a vested interest in our 'constitutional rights' stepped up to the plate,perhaps your good self ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 You never answered my question. What would have happened if Mrs Miller & co hadnt bought the action ? Would some other public spirited person,with a vested interest in our 'constitutional rights' stepped up to the plate,perhaps your good self ? I would imagine so. Miller was one of a number of people who brought similar proceedings. The government itself may even have sought a declaration to accompany the Article 50 notice and thus demonstrate Article 50 had been complied with. It would have failed to get the declaration, but given how apparently confident it was, it might well have tried. There is a leading tax QC Jolyon Maugham bringing proceedings in Ireland on the revocation point as well. Miller isn't alone in all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 I would imagine so. Miller was one of a number of people who brought similar proceedings. The government itself may even have sought a declaration to accompany the Article 50 notice and thus demonstrate Article 50 had been complied with. It would have failed to get the declaration, but given how apparently confident it was, it might well have tried. There is a leading tax QC Jolyon Maugham bringing proceedings in Ireland on the revocation point as well. Miller isn't alone in all of this. That is a fair comment,but seriously ,do you think that the proper application of the law is at the top of the agenda here,or is it the frustration of the leaving process? Bearing in mind that early indications,bar the libs and SNP ,parliament will support the signing of article 50,it would appear to the casual observer,that it is exactly that,a delaying tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 By fair means or foul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 That is a fair comment,but seriously ,do you think that the proper application of the law is at the top of the agenda here,or is it the frustration of the leaving process? Bearing in mind that early indications,bar the libs and SNP ,parliament will support the signing of article 50,it would appear to the casual observer,that it is exactly that,a delaying tactic. Good point, when did morals ever play a part in the elite of society's thought processes, I'd say it's a funny time for all these mega rich business owners, bankers, solicitors and some MPs to suddenly find a conscience!It's also no coincidence that most of those who funded the challenge are hiding in the shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 The Judges voted 8 to 3. There must have been some legal argument for the 3 judges to vote with the government ? If this had been a jury vote the case would have been dismissed or a retrial. No it wouldn't. 8 to 3 is a clear majority verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Anyone who says now that the referendum was only advisory, not binding or whatever,, is living in cloud cuckoo land a line was drawn in the sand that day and it can never be undrawn, you can't turn back the clock Its a fact now, its done Well, I guess I'm one of the inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land, but I would refer you back to the government's decision in 2010 that NO referendum should be binding. That was how things stood last summer so the fact remains that the referendum on EU membership could be nothing other than "only advisory, not binding or whatever". I don't think it's very respectful of you to consign people to "cloud cuckoo land" because they can accept and understand fact - and you apparently can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) No it wouldn't. 8 to 3 is a clear majority verdict. Are you sure? I ask because this weekend I was talking to somebody who has just been on jury service. I've now looked up what 'majority verdict' means. I'll let other PW members confirm that you're wrong as I'm no master of the law. Edited January 25, 2017 by yod dropper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 I don't think it's very respectful of you to consign people to "cloud cuckoo land" because they can accept and understand fact - and you apparently can't. So it's not very respectful of Vince, but okay for you to label posts as "silly". No hypocrisy there then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 No it wouldn't. 8 to 3 is a clear majority verdict. Err yes it would majority verdict nounEnglish Law noun: majority verdict; plural noun: majority verdicts a verdict agreed by all but one or two of the members of a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) A majority verdict in the U.K. requires 10 or more jurors to agree so 8 to 3 wouldn't do it, it would be a retrial. However it's like comparing apples and oranges, jurors do not have to come to a decision. They are only concerned with proof of guilt they don't have have to be concerned with proof of innocence, there is a presumption that you are already innocent. Magistrates and judges however do need to agree hence why they almost invariably sit in odd numbers, therefore 6 to 5 would do it. There was no presumption that either one of the parties involved in this case was right before the trial started hence the need for a decision. Edited January 25, 2017 by timps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts