Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

Good point. Who are these three unelected judges?

 

Baron Thomas the UK lord Chief Justice,just happens to be the person who set up the European Law institute, with the intension of further integration of European Laws, that would over-ride British law. So much for his impartiality.

 

 Another of these judges was Sir Phillip Sales who had previously been part of Tony WMD Blairs government, during which period he just so happened to bill the British  taxpayer over £600,000 per year. Probably trying to keep up with Cherie. So we know  whose interest he's looking after.

 

  Yet people on TV keep complaining that Thailand is corrupt and is governed by the 

 elite/establishment for their own interest. Well how about smelling the coffee and looking at their own country!

 

 

 

So, one is an internationally renowned expert in the area of EU law; one is so skilled in his trade that the government considers his services to be worth a considerable sum - terrible that we should turn to such people for guidance! By the way, you forgot to mention the Mail's attack on the third judge - that he is a gay fencer.  

 

I was reminded today of a quote from everyone's favourite shyster, Farage: "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way."

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, Asiantravel said:

it could be back to the polls again. I wonder how the UK will vote this time?at least the scaremongers won't be able to frighten  the public this time around of how the sky will fall in if they leave the EU

 

Prospect of early general election increases after High Court rules Government cannot trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/high-court-to-rule-on-brexit-legal-battle-and-theresa-mays-decis/

 

Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU; the 28% who did not vote were, presumably, expecting a comfortable win for Remain or were not fussed either way. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Brexiters represent the largest swathe of the country - clearly they are a minority.

[kevkev1888]

Parliament voted on holding a referendum. 

 

Now they think they need to vote on whether to accept the result. Total BS!

 

The vote was Leave, now get the <deleted> on with it!

 

 

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

Now they think they need to vote on whether to accept the result.

Surely the vote is on how to implement the result

[kevkev1888]

Just now, SaintLouisBlues said:

Surely the vote is on how to implement the result

 

Yes, this is as I see it, they need to get on with it quickly.

 

Just the remoaners going on and on and on and on again!

[Khun Han]

May to inform Juncker that brexit timetable still stands following court decision:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37868987

[Asiantravel]

39 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU; the 28% who did not vote were, presumably, expecting a comfortable win for Remain or were not fussed either way. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Brexiters represent the largest swathe of the country - clearly they are a minority.

 

 

It will be a lot different this time around when they see that half the things the scaremongers warned about didn't even happen plus they will see in four weeks time the real evidence of the beginning of a slowly crumbling and decaying EU when Italy votes no

 

Unless the Yes campaign can shift tactics, Italy's constitutional referendum is heading for a No vote

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/11/01/italy-constitutional-referendum-heading-for-a-no-vote/

[Johnyo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXyb4EXUDAsTUf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[impulse]

42 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

Parliament voted on holding a referendum. 

 

Now they think they need to vote on whether to accept the result. Total BS!

 

The vote was Leave, now get the <deleted> on with it!

 

Translation:  Parliament asked for the people's opinion.  

 

The result was a tiny majority expressing a preference to leave.

 

Now Parliament has to exercise their responsibility to decide what's in the country's long term best interest.  Which is often at odds with the whims of public opinion on one day in the history of the nation.  

 

And that's exactly why there is a representative form of government and not a dictate by referendum.

 

Leave, stay.  I don't have a dog in that fight.  But do it the right way.

[partington]

No seriously let's trust complex decisions about the economic future of a country to people who are too thick to remember what an apostrophe is for...

 

It's like thinking the best way to land a plane in tricky crosswinds at a water-surrounded airport is to call ten passengers into the cockpit and let them vote on what levers they think the pilot should pull.

 

I want experts to do difficult things that need knowledge and analytical ability, not random people.  I think I'm not a fool, but I also wouldn't want any economic policy to be decided by me as I realise I know FA about it.

[Grouse]

26 minutes ago, partington said:

No seriously let's trust complex decisions about the economic future of a country to people who are too thick to remember what an apostrophe is for...

 

It's like thinking the best way to land a plane in tricky crosswinds at a water-surrounded airport is to call ten passengers into the cockpit and let them vote on what levers they think the pilot should pull.

 

I want experts to do difficult things that need knowledge and analytical ability, not random people.  I think I'm not a fool, but I also wouldn't want any economic policy to be decided by me as I realise I know FA about it.

 

Post of the day! Well said sir!

[Orac]

30 minutes ago, partington said:

No seriously let's trust complex decisions about the economic future of a country to people who are too thick to remember what an apostrophe is for...

 

It's like thinking the best way to land a plane in tricky crosswinds at a water-surrounded airport is to call ten passengers into the cockpit and let them vote on what levers they think the pilot should pull.

 

I want experts to do difficult things that need knowledge and analytical ability, not random people.  I think I'm not a fool, but I also wouldn't want any economic policy to be decided by me as I realise I know FA about it.

 

[Dagnabbit]

No seriously let's trust complex decisions about the economic future of a country to people who are too thick to remember what an apostrophe is for...
 
It's like thinking the best way to land a plane in tricky crosswinds at a water-surrounded airport is to call ten passengers into the cockpit and let them vote on what levers they think the pilot should pull.
 
I want experts to do difficult things that need knowledge and analytical ability, not random people.  I think I'm not a fool, but I also wouldn't want any economic policy to be decided by me as I realise I know FA about it.

In other words, you are an elitist.

Which will work fine for you until the day the elite starts doing things you don't like and it suddenly dawns on you - you were never one of the elite in the first place.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stag4]

3 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

Oh dear! - you should practice your Googling a little - research rather than search - look up the rules applying to the referendum on Brexit---actually don't bother, you are the ONLY person who doesn't know this....Brexiteer or remainer.

 

here's a brief summary for you.....

"There are two types of referendum that have been held by the UK Government, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). To date the previous three UK-wide referendums in 1975, 2011 and 2016 were all post-legislative. Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign." - wiki

 

Took your advice and did a little googling. 

This from www.parliament.uk not Wiki

Background to the UK's  EU referendum 2016 relevant reports and briefings

Brexit the immediate legal consequences -The constitutional society

1. In practice the forthcoming referendum outcome will bind the government. In theory it is advisory but in reality its result will be decisive for what happens next.

2. Having regard to the referendum question recommended by the Electoral Commission and the binding nature of that result, there would be no alternative but to engage in the Article 50 TEU negotiating process in the event of Brexit. 

[Grouse]

33 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

He's a Burke!

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, partington said:

No seriously let's trust complex decisions about the economic future of a country to people who are too thick to remember what an apostrophe is for...

 

It's like thinking the best way to land a plane in tricky crosswinds at a water-surrounded airport is to call ten passengers into the cockpit and let them vote on what levers they think the pilot should pull.

 

I want experts to do difficult things that need knowledge and analytical ability, not random people.  I think I'm not a fool, but I also wouldn't want any economic policy to be decided by me as I realise I know FA about it.

 

Better sill, let's just go for the 'nominated by peers good people' type-of-democracy proposed by the yellow shirts a few years ago in Thailand ? Why trust anything to the 'numpties'?

[Asiantravel]

May to tell Jean-Claude Juncker Brexit plans not derailed by court

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37868987

[Guest]

There might come a time, when it's time to open negotiations between UK and EU. How do we make the EU better for all of us. 

I think we EU citizens are more than willing to give Junker to the sharks. I hope UK will do the same with Nigel and Boris. 

 

Some conservative representatives were asking to have God save the queen at the end of BBC1 programming. This was the response from BBC Newsnight (we love you Brits for this stuff).

 

"We are incredibly happy to oblige". Such an style and elegance! :) 

Look the video on twitter, if it doesn't play here.

 

[Grouse]

17 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

In other words, you are an elitist.

Which will work fine for you until the day the elite starts doing things you don't like and it suddenly dawns on you - you were never one of the elite in the first place.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

This issue of representative parliamentary democracy is worthy of serious discussion as there are both misunderstandings and differences of opinion.

 

It is my view that constituents elect the person they think will take the optimum decisions in the interest of all. If not, let's have a plebiscite on everything every day. We all have smart phones!

 

The term elitist has confusing, alternative meanings. I hope our MPs are the elite.

 

I know more than some and less than others. Am I an elitist? Or just arrogant?

[7by7]

Brexit court ruling: Your questions answered

Quote

Was the referendum result mandatory or advisory?

The EU referendum was advisory - as was discussed in the court ruling on Thursday.

It points to the "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy" in the UK, which "lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question".

"No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act," it adds.

 

Last night on Question Time Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, who campaigned for the Remain side, said  that the ruling by the High Court was a "clear attempt to frustrate the will of the British people" despite a "very, very clear" result from the EU referendum.

 

I do believe that Parliament is sovereign and that the final deal negotiated by the government should be approved by Parliament. Particularly as leaving the EU could remove rights we British have which were derived from EU law and granted by previous Acts of Parliament, such as free movement, the working time directive etc..

 

But the British people have spoken, and although I still firmly believe that they made the wrong decision I also firmly believe in democracy. As, it seems, does Mrs. May and her government, most of whom were on the Remain side.

 

Calls for May to reveal in advance what the government will and will not accept in the deal, whether in the Press or Parliament, are, in my view, ridiculous. Who in their right mind tells the other side what they will accept prior to the negotiations even starting?

 

An example which may seem simplistic, but is, I think, valid. If you were negotiating to buy a house you would know the maximum price you were prepared to pay. Would anyone here be stupid enough to say to the vendor "I may be offering you £150,000 now; but I'll pay up to £200,000 if you want!"

 

 

[cumgranosalum]

1 hour ago, stag4 said:

 

1. In practice the forthcoming referendum outcome will bind the government. In theory it is advisory but in reality its result will be decisive for what happens next.

2. Having regard to the referendum question recommended by the Electoral Commission and the binding nature of that result, there would be no alternative but to engage in the Article 50 TEU negotiating process in the event of Brexit. 

purely a subjective assessment - the REALITY is that under law it is not binding. I believe even you are now aware of this but are trying to shift your answer so it doesn't look so uninformed. faceit, you made a gaff, now give up on it and move on.

[cumgranosalum]

the Beeb had a nice take on things when MP for Romford Andrew Rosindell  demanded they now play "God Save the Queen" at the end of the night to celebrate UK's departure from the EU......God Save the Queen

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

the Beeb had a nice take on things when MP for Romford Andrew Rosindell  demanded they now play "God Save the Queen" at the end of the night to celebrate UK's departure from the EU......God Save the Queen

 

Err, have you read the entire topic?

 

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

There might come a time, when it's time to open negotiations between UK and EU. How do we make the EU better for all of us. 

I think we EU citizens are more than willing to give Junker to the sharks. I hope UK will do the same with Nigel and Boris. 

 

Some conservative representatives were asking to have God save the queen at the end of BBC1 programming. This was the response from BBC Newsnight (we love you Brits for this stuff).

 

"We are incredibly happy to oblige". Such an style and elegance! :) 

Look the video on twitter, if it doesn't play here.

 

 

[Grouse]

32 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Brexit court ruling: Your questions answered

 

Last night on Question Time Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, who campaigned for the Remain side, said  that the ruling by the High Court was a "clear attempt to frustrate the will of the British people" despite a "very, very clear" result from the EU referendum.

 

I do believe that Parliament is sovereign and that the final deal negotiated by the government should be approved by Parliament. Particularly as leaving the EU could remove rights we British have which were derived from EU law and granted by previous Acts of Parliament, such as free movement, the working time directive etc..

 

But the British people have spoken, and although I still firmly believe that they made the wrong decision I also firmly believe in democracy. As, it seems, does Mrs. May and her government, most of whom were on the Remain side.

 

Calls for May to reveal in advance what the government will and will not accept in the deal, whether in the Press or Parliament, are, in my view, ridiculous. Who in their right mind tells the other side what they will accept prior to the negotiations even starting?

 

An example which may seem simplistic, but is, I think, valid. If you were negotiating to buy a house you would know the maximum price you were prepared to pay. Would anyone here be stupid enough to say to the vendor "I may be offering you £150,000 now; but I'll pay up to £200,000 if you want!"

 

 

 

To reiterate, it's not that kind of negotiation. Better to be open with the situation. There are win win solutions which I have suggested.

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

To reiterate, it's not that kind of negotiation. Better to be open with the situation. There are win win solutions which I have suggested.

 

The negotiations will be to reach a mutually agreed deal for the UK to leave the EU.

 

 

 

May wants what she considers to be the best deal for the UK; Junkers, or whoever, will want the best deal for the EU. Whilst the two may not be mutually exclusive, there will be differences and revealing one's hand and strategy before the negotiations have even begun would be utterly foolhardy. Were she do that she may as well simply say to the EU "Tell us what your terms are and we'll accept them!" In other words; unconditional surrender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[delgarcon]

13 hours ago, Phuket Man said:

The best news I have had in ages.

Sterling has already jumped up.

I think it's more the Dollar weakening as Trump makes ground in the polls. No way we're not going to Brexit unfortunately.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Brexit court ruling: Your questions answered

 

Last night on Question Time Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, who campaigned for the Remain side, said  that the ruling by the High Court was a "clear attempt to frustrate the will of the British people" despite a "very, very clear" result from the EU referendum.

 

I do believe that Parliament is sovereign and that the final deal negotiated by the government should be approved by Parliament. Particularly as leaving the EU could remove rights we British have which were derived from EU law and granted by previous Acts of Parliament, such as free movement, the working time directive etc..

 

But the British people have spoken, and although I still firmly believe that they made the wrong decision I also firmly believe in democracy. As, it seems, does Mrs. May and her government, most of whom were on the Remain side.

 

Calls for May to reveal in advance what the government will and will not accept in the deal, whether in the Press or Parliament, are, in my view, ridiculous. Who in their right mind tells the other side what they will accept prior to the negotiations even starting?

 

An example which may seem simplistic, but is, I think, valid. If you were negotiating to buy a house you would know the maximum price you were prepared to pay. Would anyone here be stupid enough to say to the vendor "I may be offering you £150,000 now; but I'll pay up to £200,000 if you want!"

 

 

 

  I believe you yourself, voted remain,if so I do respect your opinion, the same for Sajid Daved another remainer. The problem is the Remoaners,who obviously do not believe in democracy. Maybe this gentleman had them in mind.

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

This is a legal decision based on a narrow point of established law, supported by case examples.  The judiciary had to hear the case.  It is beyond the scope of judges to comment on political matters, and is any case not relevent to the case.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, cumgranosalum said:

purely a subjective assessment - the REALITY is that under law it is not binding. I believe even you are now aware of this but are trying to shift your answer so it doesn't look so uninformed. faceit, you made a gaff, now give up on it and move on.

 

Nearly every political commentator describes it as politically binding and discounts the possibilty of MP's rejecting the result, and indeed it hasn't happened, has it?.  You are right it is not legally binding in absolute terms.