Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sir Tigger KC on 03 November 2016, 10:50:51
-
The High Court has decreed that there must be a vote in Parliament before the Government can invoke Article 50. ::)
Given that something like 95% of MP's voted to have the referendum in the first place, will they respect the will of the people or is it the first stage of the Establishment stitch up to keep Britain in the EU? ???
Sterling is up and the FSTE is down on the news. More uncertainty! ::)
-
I'm past caring, another saga that's gonna drag on for years with, probably, a half-arsed compromise at the end of it.
-
The last fight of a desperate establishment. I might respect them slightly if they were honest enough to admit that they are trying to stop Brexit from happening.
-
The last fight of a desperate establishment. I might respect them slightly if they were honest enough to admit that they are trying to stop Brexit from happening.
Politian's :o
You having a giggle ::) ::)
-
I'm past caring, another saga that's gonna drag on for years with, probably, a half-arsed compromise at the end of it.
Yep.
-
There is an inbuilt majority of 'remainers' in the house of commons.
Would they dare to vote that way after the people have already decided to leave?
I very much doubt it.
-
What will be interesting is how many MP's who voted for the referendum in the first place and whose constituents voted to leave the EU, will vote against invoking Article 50. ::)
-
What will be interesting is how many MP's who voted for the referendum in the first place and whose constituents voted to leave the EU, will vote against invoking Article 50. ::)
Those that do may well be lynched.
Politicians are employed to represent the will of their constituents.
-
To me the crux of the issue is that the government (the same government that we have now) sent a written statement to every household in the land saying that "The Government will implement the decision". I see that as a contract between the people and the government. Furthermore, that statement unambiguously implied that the referendum was not "advisory".
Make no bones about it, whether you are a Brexiteer or Remainer, this judgement shows that the unelected judiciary has placed itself above the government and above us, the people. It is an out-and-out assault on democracy. >:( >:(
-
What will be interesting is how many MP's who voted for the referendum in the first place and whose constituents voted to leave the EU, will vote against invoking Article 50. ::)
Those that do may well be lynched.
Politicians are employed to represent the will of their constituents.
You and I might think that M'Lud, but I think that a significant amount of politicians elected or not think otherwise. ::) >:(
-
The irony of this affair is not wasted on me. Most observers agreed that the leave vote was mainly based on immigration and the woman who brought this case to law is a Guyanan immigrant.
-
Anna Soubry the Tory MP for Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire is a case in point. A majority of her constituents voted to leave the EU (54.6%) and yet she has been doing the rounds of the TV sofas telling anyone who will listen her negative views on BREXIT. ::)
-
I just wish the vote had been more definitive. 52% to 48% was always going to open a can of worms.
It is easy to dismiss a few thousand malcontents but not so easy to give a 'f**k you' to 16 million remainers/remoaners.
Either way there will be be tears before bedtime.
-
I just wish the vote had been more definitive. 52% to 48% was always going to open a can of worms.
It is easy to dismiss a few thousand malcontents but not so easy to give a 'f**k you' to 16 million remainers/remoaners.
Either way they'll be tears before bedtime.
Isn't there always? It's the same with the American election, that will probably be 50.1 v 49.9 or something similar. One party will get a majority in the senate, and the other in the House of Representatives, so ensues another four years of sweet FA.
-
What i have seen is post the referendum result my facebook has been
from those who voted Exit : "Cool, we won, right, who's for a pint, ooh, got the kids to get off to school..."
from those who voted Remain: "NOOO!!! ARRGH!!! My face hurts! Jesus all these Jeremy Kyle Racist guests have voted to kill all immigrants!! Every who voted exit YOU have destoyed the country!! Racism didn't exist until today! "
and similar knee-jerking over-reactions...
now this has come about ...
from those who voted Exit: "Hey guys, anyone seen this vid with a funny dog?... Got my Poppy today... Ooh, that Len off Strictly is on the radio..."
from those who voted Remain: "Ahahahaaaaa!!!! Ner ner ne nerrr nerrrr!! The High Court are vetoing it, common sense prevails! You see, all you scummy great unwashed can shove it. Honestly, I passionately support Democratic process... but only when it votes in favour of what I want, obviously."
Brexiters don't care, they're happy to get on with their lives, the Remainers seem to be grasping for...anything, really. :(
This, I am hoping is not a typical cross-section of how voters/ the populous are behaving. One woman in particular has been getting my goat a bit, with pretty nasty comments about Leavers and the suggestions that anyone who voted Exit is racist, and anyone who voted Remain is some kind of enlightened Illuminati.
NO issue with those on here, or indeed anywhere who voted either way, I sincerely hope this is just a pattern in my circle of acquaintances..
-
May (Remainer) playing a blinding game. She would have known all along that the decision will be reversed by powers higher than hers.
This is Corporatism at its best. It goes something like....... Business works better when it is global and has no barriers and pays no tax. When it is working in that manner it is good for the companies and ergo good for the little man (that is all of us).
I said the day after the vote that the establishment had cocked up in allowing an out vote. :o
-
Be careful what you wish for Varche... Capitalism has been very good at screwing little people :-X
-
May (Remainer) playing a blinding game. She would have known all along that the decision will be reversed by powers higher than hers.
This is Corporatism at its best. It goes something like....... Business works better when it is global and has no barriers and pays no tax. When it is working in that manner it is good for the companies and ergo good for the little man (that is all of us).
I said the day after the vote that the establishment had cocked up in allowing an out vote. :o
. . . . . and a game it is. Junkers et al have already made it clear that "out means out" etc and that they will play hardball on Brexit arrangements, however even if for some reason we do end up staying, the UK will then be seen as weak and easy pickings for any future negotiations. May is appearing to take a hardline, but possibly knowing that she may not win, however she can still appear to the EU as if she is a hardnut. Whatever, I thinks she's doing ok . . . . so far ???
I still believe that Cameron was nuts to call the referendum. He badly misjudged public feeling, even under pressure from the Tory Eurosceptics.
-
What i have seen is post the referendum result my facebook has been
from those who voted Exit : "Cool, we won, right, who's for a pint, ooh, got the kids to get off to school..."
from those who voted Remain: "NOOO!!! ARRGH!!! My face hurts! Jesus all these Jeremy Kyle Racist guests have voted to kill all immigrants!! Every who voted exit YOU have destoyed the country!! Racism didn't exist until today! "
and similar knee-jerking over-reactions...
now this has come about ...
from those who voted Exit: "Hey guys, anyone seen this vid with a funny dog?... Got my Poppy today... Ooh, that Len off Strictly is on the radio..."
from those who voted Remain: "Ahahahaaaaa!!!! Ner ner ne nerrr nerrrr!! The High Court are vetoing it, common sense prevails! You see, all you scummy great unwashed can shove it. Honestly, I passionately support Democratic process... but only when it votes in favour of what I want, obviously."
Brexiters don't care, they're happy to get on with their lives, the Remainers seem to be grasping for...anything, really. :(
This, I am hoping is not a typical cross-section of how voters/ the populous are behaving. One woman in particular has been getting my goat a bit, with pretty nasty comments about Leavers and the suggestions that anyone who voted Exit is racist, and anyone who voted Remain is some kind of enlightened Illuminati.
NO issue with those on here, or indeed anywhere who voted either way, I sincerely hope this is just a pattern in my circle of acquaintances..
Some perhaps.
I voted to remain but accept the result.
I don't want another referendum, and I don't want 600 MP's to change what 17 million of the Brexit persuasion voted for.
We are Great Britain and I'm sure we can thrive both in and out of the EU. :y
It'll be fine.....eventually. :y
-
Jeremy kyle is a arrogant smug little turd.
I find it hard to believe that anyone actually likes him.
-
Some perhaps.
I voted to remain but accept the result.
I don't want another referendum, and I don't want 600 MP's to change what 17 million of the Brexit persuasion voted for.
We are Great Britain and I'm sure we can thrive both in and out of the EU. :y
It'll be fine.....eventually. :y
:y :y :y
Absoluteley. Let's just get on with it
-
I just wish the vote had been more definitive. 52% to 48% was always going to open a can of worms.
Agreed and that applies whichever way the vote went. Could you imagine Farage conceding defeat and retiring to a pub somewhere in deepest darkest Kent if the result had been a narrow victory for remaining in the EU? ::)
However I do think if Cameron and Osborne had run a positive campaign that highlighted the benefits of Britain remaining in the EU rather than the negative 'Project Fear', the result would have been much more decisive for leaving the EU. ;)
-
DBG - "Anyone who voted leave should be stripped of their right to vote as they are retarded".. file under "words I've heard at work"..
-
DBG - "Anyone who voted leave should be stripped of their right to vote as they are retarded".. file under "words I've heard at work"..
Bit harsh. :D
-
Jeremy kyle is a arrogant smug little turd.
I find it hard to believe that anyone actually likes him.
Slightly off topic, but nevertheless a good point well made... :D
-
Shamelessly copied from elsewhere. Someone's done a good bit of research:
All the judges are in one way or another connected to Mr T Blair.
The High court judge who originally ruled that the government must face a court hearing before triggering Article 50 was former Labour MP Ross Cranston. He was elected in 1997 and then promptly appointed as Solicitor General for England and Wales by Blair. He terminated his parliamentary career in 2005 and was appointed as a High Court Judge two years later by Blair.
...
So how about the judges behind today’s ruling? Philip Sales is another one of Blair’s. He practiced at the same law chambers that Blair co-founded...
The second judge, Terence Etherton, was appointed a High Court judge in 2001 while Blair was in office and Cranston was Solicitor General. He was then promoted to Lord Justice of Appeal by Gordon Brown. The third judge, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, meanwhile is a founding members of the European Law Institute which makes recommendations and provides guidance with the goal of “enhancing European legal integration”.
Surprised? Anyone? >:(
-
Well that's that bollaxed then...the very mechanism that regulates the whole debacle is insipidly pro European >:(
So there won't be any disintegration framework...
A bit like legalising gay marriage but not gay divorce ::)
-
I used to laugh at conspiracy theories.
Now I read them with interest...and apprehension. :o
-
If there is the slightest chance that we don't actually leave the EU, brought about by some mechanism of parliament, then we have become a fully fledged banana republic. In small African countries, if a vote doesn't go the way of the people already in power, then the vote is declared to be null and void and people are shot and beaten on the streets. That won't happen here, I'm sure, but the whole democratic process will be finished.
If I don't like the result of the next General election, I'm going to find a sympathetic judge to declare it illegal.
-
I think you're all missing the point. The judges in the High/Supreme court aren't in the least bit influenced by public (or political) opinion and nor should they be. Their job is to rule on matters of law.
They have been asked the question "In Law, is it Parliament or The Government that has the right to invoke Art50?" They have decided that under the "1972 European Communities Act" that Parliament has to take the decision. You can read the act and decide for yourself if this interpretation is correct here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents
Parliament writes the laws, so if the laws don't do what the Government want than it ain't the Judges fault - the politicians should have got the laws right in place first.
IMV the Judges have got this one right - Parliament should have the last say on virtually everything. However, MP's can be in no doubt that a majority voted for Brexit, and if they vote against the will of their constituents then they will probably pay the price at the next general election.
-
I think you're all missing the point. The judges in the High/Supreme court aren't in the least bit influenced by public (or political) opinion and nor should they be. Their job is to rule on matters of law.
They have been asked the question "In Law, is it Parliament or The Government that has the right to invoke Art50?" They have decided that under the "1972 European Communities Act" that Parliament has to take the decision. You can read the act and decide for yourself if this interpretation is correct here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents
Parliament writes the laws, so if the laws don't do what the Government want than it ain't the Judges fault - the politicians should have got the laws right in place first.
IMV the Judges have got this one right - Parliament should have the last say on virtually everything. However, MP's can be in no doubt that a majority voted for Brexit, and if they vote against the will of their constituents then they will probably pay the price at the next general election.
So, in that case Cameron should have obtained the agreement and consent of parliament that the result would be abided by, before the referendum was held ? That would have been interesting ::)
-
There is no corruption within the British legal system? Seriously ? To be honest, someone appointed by Blair would probably have already sold their soul to him in order for him to appoint them in the first place.
As for parliament having the final say - they decided, by a large majority, to give the people the right to take this ecision. The people have taken their decision, and that should be the end of the matter.
What if parliament votes not to invoke article 50 ? What happens then ?
What if parliament votes against the deal the Govt. strike with the EU ? What happens then ?
If the EU know that parliament will get a vot on its deal, then it will give a terrible deal, so it gets voted down, and we end up locked in indefinitely.
This is all about the remoaners (a percentage of the remainers) being unwilling to accept the result and trying thwart it, ideally causing a second referendum.
Its standard EU practice to compel the people to vote again until they get "the right result". Its no more democratic than the USSR was.
I preidict that if anything goes seriously wrong with Brexit, millions of people will march on London,and the politicians will crap themselves and do what they were told to do in June. :)
-
We all know that the judges decision was on a point of law, but.....why did this woman go to law in the first place? I'm pretty sure it wasn't to ensure that the law was adhered to, it was more a clutching at straws exercise to try and throw a spanner in the works.
-
Her and those behind her providing the money. ;)
-
I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but, I said to SWMBO on the day after the vote, that voting to leave (which we both did) was one thing but actually being allowed to leave by the establishment was another. Watch this space for another massive stitch-up. :(
-
I was, and remain, a "remoaner" ::). But as Lord Opti, I respect the vote and don't want another Referendum. However, the number of different scenarios bandied about for what Brexit looks like, or rather could look like raises a valid constitutional point. Various forms of Brexit will alter/strip away people's fundamental rights (those given but the European Laws and the ultimate right of appeal to the ECHR). In principle, I am not comfortable with any government having the executive power to strip away citizens' rights without involving the mechanism of parliament.
Yes, MP's voted to give the people a choice but the referendum question was worded so vaguely that no one took a vote on what rights should be gained or lost. An unelected head of government should not be able to unilaterally decide which rights we get to lose.
In short, I agree that parliament should be involved, but that the will of the people be respected.
To me the crux of the issue is that the government (the same government that we have now) sent a written statement to every household in the land saying that "The Government will implement the decision". I see that as a contract between the people and the government. Furthermore, that statement unambiguously implied that the referendum was not "advisory".
True, but someone also wrote an extra £350m/week for the NHS down the side of a bus and used it to persuade voters. There is no contract between people and politicians. They lie we choos to swallow it, or not.
-
You accept the result, therefore you aren't a remoaner. ;) :)
No-one ever said the NHS would receive an extra £350 million per week. It was implied yes, but not stated. It said the saving could be used for the NHS.
Cameron, Osborne and everyone else involved on both sides, said on TV that voting to leave would mean we left the single market, and all the other aspects of the EU.There was no doubt whatsoever. And as mentioned, we all had it in writing, that the result would be implemented.
We may not have a contract with the state, but in reality, the only power the state has is the power that we have lent it. It has no right to ignore our instructions. If that does happen, then democracy in the UK is dead.
-
I think you're all missing the point. The judges in the High/Supreme court aren't in the least bit influenced by public (or political) opinion and nor should they be. Their job is to rule on matters of law.
They have been asked the question "In Law, is it Parliament or The Government that has the right to invoke Art50?" They have decided that under the "1972 European Communities Act" that Parliament has to take the decision. You can read the act and decide for yourself if this interpretation is correct here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents
Parliament writes the laws, so if the laws don't do what the Government want than it ain't the Judges fault - the politicians should have got the laws right in place first.
IMV the Judges have got this one right - Parliament should have the last say on virtually everything. However, MP's can be in no doubt that a majority voted for Brexit, and if they vote against the will of their constituents then they will probably pay the price at the next general election.
So, in that case Cameron should have obtained the agreement and consent of parliament that the result would be abided by, before the referendum was held ? That would have been interesting ::)
In a word - Yes.
There is no corruption within the British legal system? Seriously ? To be honest, someone appointed by Blair would probably have already sold their soul to him in order for him to appoint them in the first place.
Your point may hold some water if you can show that the Judges have made an error in law. So where do you think they have made such an error?
As for parliament having the final say - they decided, by a large majority, to give the people the right to take this ecision. The people have taken their decision, and that should be the end of the matter.
If the law says that parliament has a final say, then it doesn't really matter what has happened so far. Or are you saying that the Government should be allowed to act illegally "just this once"?
What if parliament votes not to invoke article 50 ? What happens then ?
I guess that any MP's who vote against what the majority of their constituents want will lose their seat at the next general election in 2020.
What if parliament votes against the deal the Govt. strike with the EU ? What happens then ?
If the EU know that parliament will get a vot on its deal, then it will give a terrible deal, so it gets voted down, and we end up locked in indefinitely.
The EU ain't gonna enter into talks until/unless we invoke Art50. Once we've invoked it, then it's probably a one way trip to Brexit (I know opinions differ on whether Art50 is reversible once invoked). Any vote in parliament on the terms will likely be a "do you accept what's been negotiated, or do you want Hard Brexit/WTO terms". I doubt that we'll be able to go back a second time to try and sweeten the deal.
This is all about the remoaners (a percentage of the remainers) being unwilling to accept the result and trying thwart it, ideally causing a second referendum.
Its standard EU practice to compel the people to vote again until they get "the right result". Its no more democratic than the USSR was.
I preidict that if anything goes seriously wrong with Brexit, millions of people will march on London,and the politicians will crap themselves and do what they were told to do in June. :)
I sort of agree, but it's pointless accusing the Judges of being complicit in this. They aren't - they're making the Govt obey the existing law.
-
We all know that the judges decision was on a point of law, but.....why did this woman go to law in the first place? I'm pretty sure it wasn't to ensure that the law was adhered to, it was more a clutching at straws exercise to try and throw a spanner in the works.
Why does it matter? The Law is the law. No-one, especially the Government should be allowed to act outside the law. That way lies anarchy.
-
No-one ever said the NHS would receive an extra £350 million per week. It was implied yes, but not stated. It said the saving could be used for the NHS.
True. But even the figure itself seems like bunk by a lot of accounts. Particularly if the UK suffers (another) credit rating downgrade which further increases our immense borrowing costs.
I agree that the will Of the people should not be ignored, but if you go down the route of allowing our functioning head of state to take away peoples' rights without deferral to parliament, it would not be respectful of our rule of law.
The decision of the referendum needs to be the outcome, but the correct process is vitally important in a country where every legal decision sets a precedent.
-
I was, and remain, a "remoaner" ::). But as Lord Opti, I respect the vote and don't want another Referendum. However, the number of different scenarios bandied about for what Brexit looks like, or rather could look like raises a valid constitutional point. Various forms of Brexit will alter/strip away people's fundamental rights (those given but the European Laws and the ultimate right of appeal to the ECHR). In principle, I am not comfortable with any government having the executive power to strip away citizens' rights without involving the mechanism of parliament.
Yes, MP's voted to give the people a choice but the referendum question was worded so vaguely that no one took a vote on what rights should be gained or lost. An unelected head of government should not be able to unilaterally decide which rights we get to lose.
No. The ECHR is not an EU institution. If/when the UK leaves the EU we will still be full members of the ECHR. Although many Brexit supporters would like us to leave the ECHR too that's not on the current adjenda.
-
If voting made any difference , they wouldnt let us do it. Mark Twain
Just an observation but if an MPs constituents voted by majority for something (eg Brexit) surely there job is to represent that and not their party line?
Jimmy. Credit downgrade? Well just another tool in the establishments armoury to make us realise the error of the out vote. Pound slipping is another. Today we had Carney spouting rubbish including actually saying he wouldnt be able to cut interest rates. Wake up Carney a cut would mean negative rates! First we had project fear and now it is and has been a new project. Fear2?
-
No. The ECHR is not an EU institution. If/when the UK leaves the EU we will still be full members of the ECHR. Although many Brexit supporters would like us to leave the ECHR too that's not on the current adjenda.
Apologies, you're right, I meant ECJ, but that is also not strictly correct as you (as a person) can't appeal to the ECJ, the national court has to refer it. I blame posting on a forum while shouting at Americans on Question Time ;D
-
To my knowledge high court judges make rulings on their interpretation of the law ? If it was a simple matter of reading the relevant statute, we wouldn't actually need them. And surely, therein lies the opportunity for them to see things through their Blairite, pro EU goggles ?
-
It is subject to appeal, so lets wait and see what is decided as the lower court ruling maybe upheld or reversed.
Tory MPs will be subject to a three line whip and most MP's have a sense of the importance of the democratic principles involved here and will not want to cause a constitutional crisis.
If Theresa calls an election she will have a massive 165 seat majority according to recent polls, where Labour has effectively imploded under Corbyn. A poll today put Theresa May 42%, don't knows 39% and Corbyn on 19% as who makes the best Prime Minister.
I'm sure remoaners, who won't accept the democratic result will be bed wetting with glee tonight, but I personally think it will make little difference to what happens. The majority of other EU countries can't wait to get us out, where we constantly put a brake on the creation of the EUSSR. If the EUSSR doesn't deliver solutions to creating growth and solving other major problems, which is unlikely, at that point it will fail along with the Euro. Very right wing and Left wing national governments like Le Pen will force the issue. The end result won't be pretty, politically or economically, but life will go on and it will sort itself out.
EU failure will hit all the world economically, especially the UK, but much less so if we are out than us staying in.
-
I think you're all missing the point. The judges in the High/Supreme court aren't in the least bit influenced by public (or political) opinion and nor should they be. Their job is to rule on matters of law.
They have been asked the question "In Law, is it Parliament or The Government that has the right to invoke Art50?" They have decided that under the "1972 European Communities Act" that Parliament has to take the decision. You can read the act and decide for yourself if this interpretation is correct here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents
Parliament writes the laws, so if the laws don't do what the Government want than it ain't the Judges fault - the politicians should have got the laws right in place first.
IMV the Judges have got this one right - Parliament should have the last say on virtually everything. However, MP's can be in no doubt that a majority voted for Brexit, and if they vote against the will of their constituents then they will probably pay the price at the next general election.
Not often I have to agree 100% with you ::)
But this is it exactly... The courts aren't getting involved in the decision, just making sure that the current UK laws are upheld. ;)
Whilst I think the decision to leave the EU is the wrong one I respect that that is what should happen and we just need to work through it. Life will go on.
Perhaps it is time for the UK to have a clear Constitution which would have dealt with it all properly :-\
-
To my knowledge high court judges make rulings on their interpretation of the law ? If it was a simple matter of reading the relevant statute, we wouldn't actually need them. And surely, therein lies the opportunity for them to see things through their Blairite, pro EU goggles ?
So point us to the section of law which you think they have interpreted wrongly.
-
There is no corruption within the British legal system? Seriously ? To be honest, someone appointed by Blair would probably have already sold their soul to him in order for him to appoint them in the first place.
As for parliament having the final say - they decided, by a large majority, to give the people the right to take this ecision. The people have taken their decision, and that should be the end of the matter.
What if parliament votes not to invoke article 50 ? What happens then ?
What if parliament votes against the deal the Govt. strike with the EU ? What happens then ?
If the EU know that parliament will get a vot on its deal, then it will give a terrible deal, so it gets voted down, and we end up locked in indefinitely.
This is all about the remoaners (a percentage of the remainers) being unwilling to accept the result and trying thwart it, ideally causing a second referendum.
Its standard EU practice to compel the people to vote again until they get "the right result". Its no more democratic than the USSR was.
I preidict that if anything goes seriously wrong with Brexit, millions of people will march on London,and the politicians will crap themselves and do what they were told to do in June. :)
After watching Andrew Neil and chums on the box last night I think it highly unlikely. I believe it to be a mere formality.
The situation is far from ideal however you slice it up.
As for democracy.......we have the democracy of the people first followed by the democracy of parliament.
Without a vote we have a handful of Tory ministers deciding the direction for the whole country. That in itself is not democratic.
The vote will be fine. Brexit will continue.
-
The lawyers view on the judgement, which they find "A deeply troubling and wrong headed decision" and they put forward their arguments on why it is so.
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml (http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml)
Was it a 'political' interpretation rather than a sound legal one? If so, then it is likely to be overturned on appeal.
-
I don't think I'll be putting any money on this judgement being overturned at the Supreme Court. :-\
I think it's all part of an establishment stitch up, which includes that MP resigning today ( Lord Opti's MP?) to weaken the government and make it harder to repeal the European Communities Act and get the Article 50 vote through both House's of Parliament! ::)
-
After watching Andrew Neil and chums on the box last night I think it highly unlikely. I believe it to be a mere formality.
The situation is far from ideal however you slice it up.
As for democracy.......we have the democracy of the people first followed by the democracy of parliament.
Without a vote we have a handful of Tory ministers deciding the direction for the whole country. That in itself is not democratic.
No, it is entirely democratic! You elect your representative to parliament, using whatever criteria are important to you. The majority party then forms a government, and it is their responsibility to make decisions on our behalf. Continual referendums are a sign that the system isn't working as well as it should; they should be rare occurrences, used for drastic changes. EU membership is one decision that justified a referendum. It is the job - purpose even - of the government, formed of elected representatives, to implement the result.
-
After watching Andrew Neil and chums on the box last night I think it highly unlikely. I believe it to be a mere formality.
The situation is far from ideal however you slice it up.
As for democracy.......we have the democracy of the people first followed by the democracy of parliament.
Without a vote we have a handful of Tory ministers deciding the direction for the whole country. That in itself is not democratic.
No, it is entirely democratic! You elect your representative to parliament, using whatever criteria are important to you. The majority party then forms a government, and it is their responsibility to make decisions on our behalf. Continual referendums are a sign that the system isn't working as well as it should; they should be rare occurrences, used for drastic changes. EU membership is one decision that justified a referendum. It is the job - purpose even - of the government, formed of elected representatives, to implement the result.
The judges in the high court disagree. ;)
The general public are for the most part unaware that the referendum was for 'advisory purposes' only. It is not law.
This is why as a parliamentary democracy it is a requirement of law for by our elected representatives (MP's) to vote on our behalf. Don't worry though it will probably be a formality as the people have already spoken.
I would be surprised if the ruling was overturned.
-
To my knowledge high court judges make rulings on their interpretation of the law ? If it was a simple matter of reading the relevant statute, we wouldn't actually need them. And surely, therein lies the opportunity for them to see things through their Blairite, pro EU goggles ?
So point us to the section of law which you think they have interpreted wrongly.
The act of invoking article 50, is to terminate the treaties which have bound us into the position we are currently in, as members of the EU. The Government has the right to repudiate or terminate treaties, as was set out in a case in the house of lords - Rayner V the DTI (1990) 2 AC 418.
Treaties are agreements between governments, and the courts cannot rule on them until they became until they become part of domestic law by an act of Parliament.
The treaties which will be terminated by invoking article 50 aren't part of domestic law. They have all been enacted by British Governments using the royal prerogative, without any votes in Parliament.
The central argument in yesterdays case was that invoking article 50 will inevitably change domestic UK law and the rights of UK citizens.
The PM has stated that there will be a grand repeal act which will take EU law en bloc into UK domestic law, and later repeal them as and when its appropriate.
This is the point at which the courts would have jurisdiction, and parliament will be entitled to a vote.
The three judges are well known Europhiles. When Michael Gove gave his mansion house speech to the legal profession earlier this year, he was slow handclapped. This behaviour was unprecedented, and considered astonishing by observers.
All three of yesterdays judges were not only present, but unashamedly took part in the slow handclapping of Gove, purely because he advocated leaving the EU.
The woman who brought the case seems to be a distinctly dodgy character and something of a fantasist. The Brazilian hairdresser who also brought the case has sunk off the radar, so we don't know much about him.
It was funded (at least in part) by that moron who owns Pimlico Plumbers, who desperately wants to continue employing eastern European plumbers on crap wages, rather than have to pay British tradesmen a decent wage for a decent job.
Make no mistake, the purpose of this is to start a process of slowing down, frustrating, disrupting and ultimately wrecking the result of the referendum.
To think it is purely to ensure proper legal process is followed, is in my opinion, shockingly naïve.
-
What will be interesting is how many MP's who voted for the referendum in the first place and whose constituents voted to leave the EU, will vote against invoking Article 50. ::)
Those that do may well be lynched.
Politicians are employed to represent the will of their constituents.
since when have they done that >:( >:( >:(
-
Have I got news for you have just explained everything, I feel happier now.
-
The act of invoking article 50, is to terminate the treaties which have bound us into the position we are currently in, as members of the EU.
No, invoking Article 50 is merely giving formal notice to the European Council that a member state wishes to leave the EU and starts the clock ticking on a 2 year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement between that state and the EU. Treaties will cease to apply on the date of that agreement or if no agreement is concluded, then on the 2nd anniversary of the invokation of Article 50.
So given that Invoking Article 50 doesn't in itself change any domestic law, there is no need for a debate or vote in Parliament. As you rightly point out it is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 which will change the law and this will quite properly be debated and voted on in both House's of Parliament. :y
I'll say it again, the High Court decision is part of a grand establishment stitch up! >:(
-
The act of invoking article 50, is to terminate the treaties which have bound us into the position we are currently in, as members of the EU.
No, invoking Article 50 is merely giving formal notice to the European Council that a member state wishes to leave the EU and starts the clock ticking on a 2 year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement between that state and the EU. Treaties will cease to apply on the date of that agreement or if no agreement is concluded, then on the 2nd anniversary of the invokation of Article 50.
So given that Invoking Article 50 doesn't in itself change any domestic law, there is no need for a debate or vote in Parliament. As you rightly point out it is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 which will change the law and this will quite properly be debated and voted on in both House's of Parliament. :y
I'll say it again, the High Court decision is part of a grand establishment stitch up! >:(
But both parties to the case have asserted that once Article 50 has been invoked the process of leaving the EU is irreversible. Therefore, invoking Art50 is absolutely bound to trigger a change in UK law, and the Royal Perogative cannot be used to do that.
Now it may or may not be true that Art50 is reversible, but since both parties claimed it isn't the Judges decided not to rule on that point and accepted the prevailing view. The Supreme court may or may not come to the same conclusion, but if it decides it needs to take a view then they will have to refer the case to the ECJ. That will take years.
The Govt are on a hiding to nothing here and should just get on with putting a motion through parliament along the lines of "This house recognises the will of the people is to leave the EU, and will now start the process". If MP's decide to try and amend or defeat this motion then they will have to answer to their constituents in 2020.
-
The act of invoking article 50, is to terminate the treaties which have bound us into the position we are currently in, as members of the EU.
No, invoking Article 50 is merely giving formal notice to the European Council that a member state wishes to leave the EU and starts the clock ticking on a 2 year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement between that state and the EU. Treaties will cease to apply on the date of that agreement or if no agreement is concluded, then on the 2nd anniversary of the invokation of Article 50.
So given that Invoking Article 50 doesn't in itself change any domestic law, there is no need for a debate or vote in Parliament. As you rightly point out it is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 which will change the law and this will quite properly be debated and voted on in both House's of Parliament. :y
I'll say it again, the High Court decision is part of a grand establishment stitch up! >:(
But both parties to the case have asserted that once Article 50 has been invoked the process of leaving the EU is irreversible. Therefore, invoking Art50 is absolutely bound to trigger a change in UK law, and the Royal Perogative cannot be used to do that.
Now it may or may not be true that Art50 is reversible, but since both parties claimed it isn't the Judges decided not to rule on that point and accepted the prevailing view. The Supreme court may or may not come to the same conclusion, but if it decides it needs to take a view then they will have to refer the case to the ECJ. That will take years.
The Govt are on a hiding to nothing here and should just get on with putting a motion through parliament along the lines of "This house recognises the will of the people is to leave the EU, and will now start the process". If MP's decide to try and amend or defeat this motion then they will have to answer to their constituents in 2020.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, the Judges have implied that "Legislation" is needed, not a simple motion. Wording of a "Law" in such simplicity is almost impossible, and the stirrers will attempt to amend it to get control of the proceedings, not to prevent it, especially by the Upper House
-
But both parties to the case have asserted that once Article 50 has been invoked the process of leaving the EU is irreversible. Therefore, invoking Art50 is absolutely bound to trigger a change in UK law......
Yes this is true, but my point which I think our learned M'lud Justices have missed or ignored is that Article 50 itself doesn't change the law. It's the first stage of a process that will change the law, but ultimately the repeal of the European Communities Act is the point at which the law will change and that is what requires the parliamentary process! :y
That's my layman's take anyway! :P
I always knew I was in the wrong job! Who do you see about becoming a M'lud Justice? ;D
-
The act of invoking article 50, is to terminate the treaties which have bound us into the position we are currently in, as members of the EU.
No, invoking Article 50 is merely giving formal notice to the European Council that a member state wishes to leave the EU and starts the clock ticking on a 2 year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement between that state and the EU. Treaties will cease to apply on the date of that agreement or if no agreement is concluded, then on the 2nd anniversary of the invokation of Article 50.
So given that Invoking Article 50 doesn't in itself change any domestic law, there is no need for a debate or vote in Parliament. As you rightly point out it is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 which will change the law and this will quite properly be debated and voted on in both House's of Parliament. :y
I'll say it again, the High Court decision is part of a grand establishment stitch up! >:(
But both parties to the case have asserted that once Article 50 has been invoked the process of leaving the EU is irreversible. Therefore, invoking Art50 is absolutely bound to trigger a change in UK law, and the Royal Perogative cannot be used to do that.
Now it may or may not be true that Art50 is reversible, but since both parties claimed it isn't the Judges decided not to rule on that point and accepted the prevailing view. The Supreme court may or may not come to the same conclusion, but if it decides it needs to take a view then they will have to refer the case to the ECJ. That will take years.
The Govt are on a hiding to nothing here and should just get on with putting a motion through parliament along the lines of "This house recognises the will of the people is to leave the EU, and will now start the process". If MP's decide to try and amend or defeat this motion then they will have to answer to their constituents in 2020.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, the Judges have implied that "Legislation" is needed, not a simple motion. Wording of a "Law" in such simplicity is almost impossible, and the stirrers will attempt to amend it to get control of the proceedings, not to prevent it, especially by the Upper House
I think the wording was that parliament must be consulted. However, even if primary legislation is required, the same principles apply. Amendments in the Lords can be defeated by the Parliament Act. Amendments in the commons can be defeated if the Govt can align it's supporters and/or persuade enough objectors to abstain. The MP's are answerable to their electorate, and when push comes to shove I'd expect most to honour the will of the people as demonstrated by in the referendum. If they don't then they risk being out on their ear in 2020, replaced by a pro-Brexit MP.
-
But both parties to the case have asserted that once Article 50 has been invoked the process of leaving the EU is irreversible. Therefore, invoking Art50 is absolutely bound to trigger a change in UK law......
Yes this is true, but my point which I think our learned M'lud Justices have missed or ignored is that Article 50 itself doesn't change the law. It's the first stage of a process that will change the law, but ultimately the repeal of the European Communities Act is the point at which the law will change and that is what requires the parliamentary process! :y
That's my layman's take anyway! :P
I always knew I was in the wrong job! Who do you see about becoming a M'lud Justice? ;D
But - if the process is irreversible, invoking Art50 will remove rights from UK subjects no-matter what. In 2 years time we'd be out and the rights granted to UK subjects would no longer be enforceable. So Invoking Art50 does change UK law - not immediately but within 2 years time. That cannot be linked to a 'promise' to incorporate all current EU laws/directives into UK law at some undefined point in the future, since it may or may not happen.
-
But - if the process is irreversible, invoking Art50 will remove rights from UK subjects no-matter what. In 2 years time we'd be out and the rights granted to UK subjects would no longer be enforceable. So Invoking Art50 does change UK law - not immediately but within 2 years time. That cannot be linked to a 'promise' to incorporate all current EU laws/directives into UK law at some undefined point in the future, since it may or may not happen.
Sorry I don't agree that Article 50 changes the law, it's part of the process yes, but it will be the repeal of the European Communities Act that actually changes the law.
Surely as you've pointed out its a point of law. Article 50 is merely a formal notice of intent, however as it's irreversible it's bound to lead to a change in the law and the Judges should have focused on the actual point at which the law will change.
I don't think this decision is as black and white as you say, and as Albs said earlier is down to interpretation of the law and we could argue till the cows come home. ;D
What a humiliation though if the Supreme Court refer this to the ECJ!! :o
-
The longer the remoaners try to put off the inevitable, the weaker they will become, as we saw yesterday in Scotland, where the Conservatives won two council bi-election seats with a Jimmy Krankie SNP loss, along with a Nick 'don't touch my £100k EU pension' Clegg in the other, what we are told it is the stay in the EU at all
costs land Scotland. Like remoaners, Jimmy Krankie is also being found out where she is over playing her hand.
-
The act of invoking article 50, is to terminate the treaties which have bound us into the position we are currently in, as members of the EU.
No, invoking Article 50 is merely giving formal notice to the European Council that a member state wishes to leave the EU and starts the clock ticking on a 2 year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement between that state and the EU. Treaties will cease to apply on the date of that agreement or if no agreement is concluded, then on the 2nd anniversary of the invokation of Article 50.
So given that Invoking Article 50 doesn't in itself change any domestic law, there is no need for a debate or vote in Parliament. As you rightly point out it is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 which will change the law and this will quite properly be debated and voted on in both House's of Parliament. :y
I'll say it again, the High Court decision is part of a grand establishment stitch up! >:(
Agreed. I missed out the words "giving notice" in my first sentence. :-[ ::)
Invoking article 50 wont change any laws, domestic or otherwise. We are adopting all EU law when we leave, with the intention of changing the law after we have left. So the courts should have no jurisdiction until it is certain that domestic law is to be changed.
If this isn't an attempt to block the will of the people, why didn't this woman go to court when the Govt. sent a leaflet to every household saying that they would implement by the result of the referendum ?
To be honest, I think this will further widen the chasm between the political class / establishment / chattering classes and the people whom they are supposed to serve and represent.
It can only harm their positions in the long run.
-
Everyone seems to think that the MPs will "vote with the will of the people" lest they be out of a job in 2020 .. but do they really care? When you work in a revolving door establishment you know you'll be back in a few years.
This is England, there'll be a couple of days of riots in London and we'll all go back to supping our tea.
-
The 1% will ALWAYS resent the fact that the 99% have 99 times the number of votes... ::)
Constitutional reform is not a new concept... and sometimes it is the very person in charge who tries to address the shortcomings of the status quo...
https://youtu.be/UwUL9tJmypI
-
There's a brave new world out there, full of opportunity and potential. This is not something to be feared however much the 1% might protest otherwise and conspire and squirm to defend. They seek solely to preserve their interests, and their interests alone...
-
There's a brave new world out there, full of opportunity and potential. This is not something to be feared however much the 1% might protest otherwise and conspire and squirm to defend. They seek solely to preserve their interests, and their interests alone...
Spot on there Her Gollum :y :y :y
Too many people in the country belong the Snowflake Generation >:( :(
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/generation-snowflake-how-we-train-our-kids-to-be-censorious-cry-babies/
-
There's a brave new world out there, full of opportunity and potential. This is not something to be feared however much the 1% might protest otherwise and conspire and squirm to defend. They seek solely to preserve their interests, and their interests alone...
Spot on there Her Gollum :y :y :y
Too many people in the country belong the Snowflake Generation >:( :(
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/generation-snowflake-how-we-train-our-kids-to-be-censorious-cry-babies/
There is some truth in this. We now have a generation of 'Kidults'
When I was seven or eight I would take two buses to school and thought nothing of it. Plenty of other kids did the same.
I would also go into the dentist alone (mother in waiting room) to have gas when I was a similar age.
Character building stuff. :y
-
You could sum up that 'snowflake' article in one sentence. "it weren't like this when I were a lad". No, it wasn't, but things happened to kids then that went unreported or got brushed under the carpet. Dirty old bastards were just 'uncle georges' who were not to be left alone with your children and as for priests and the like, well, you daren't challenge one of those.
There were no immigrants to speak of, the Internet didn't exist and the media weren't obsessed with propagating fear at every opportunity. So....who got the raw deal, us or the kids we do our best to cherish?
And as for bullying, if you've ever been on the end of a concerted 'name calling' attack, like some of the kids who's parents can't afford the latest trainers, or are from a foreign country, then you'd know just how damaging that can be.
-
You could sum up that 'snowflake' article in one sentence. "it weren't like this when I were a lad". No, it wasn't, but things happened to kids then that went unreported or got brushed under the carpet. Dirty old bastards were just 'uncle georges' who were not to be left alone with your children and as for priests and the like, well, you daren't challenge one of those.
There were no immigrants to speak of, the Internet didn't exist and the media weren't obsessed with propagating fear at every opportunity. So....who got the raw deal, us or the kids we do our best to cherish?
And as for bullying, if you've ever been on the end of a concerted 'name calling' attack, like some of the kids who's parents can't afford the latest trainers, or are from a foreign country, then you'd know just how damaging that can be.
Didn't that one come under 'sticks and stones may break my bones' back in the day? ;)
-
You could sum up that 'snowflake' article in one sentence. "it weren't like this when I were a lad". No, it wasn't, but things happened to kids then that went unreported or got brushed under the carpet. Dirty old bastards were just 'uncle georges' who were not to be left alone with your children and as for priests and the like, well, you daren't challenge one of those.
There were no immigrants to speak of, the Internet didn't exist and the media weren't obsessed with propagating fear at every opportunity. So....who got the raw deal, us or the kids we do our best to cherish?
And as for bullying, if you've ever been on the end of a concerted 'name calling' attack, like some of the kids who's parents can't afford the latest trainers, or are from a foreign country, then you'd know just how damaging that can be.
Didn't that one come under 'sticks and stones may break my bones' back in the day? ;)
Probably, just another old fashioned attitude. To say that constant name calling and piss taking doesn't affect someone for the rest of their life, is to totally misunderstand the human psyche.
-
You could sum up that 'snowflake' article in one sentence. "it weren't like this when I were a lad". No, it wasn't, but things happened to kids then that went unreported or got brushed under the carpet. Dirty old bastards were just 'uncle georges' who were not to be left alone with your children and as for priests and the like, well, you daren't challenge one of those.
There were no immigrants to speak of, the Internet didn't exist and the media weren't obsessed with propagating fear at every opportunity. So....who got the raw deal, us or the kids we do our best to cherish?
And as for bullying, if you've ever been on the end of a concerted 'name calling' attack, like some of the kids who's parents can't afford the latest trainers, or are from a foreign country, then you'd know just how damaging that can be.
Everybody who is different from the top lad at school is picked on.
I never had all the latest clothes of trainers.
I got the piss ripped out of me on a daily basis.
I used to get chased home with the risk of a good kicking until I was about 13.
I burst through the back door to find my old man was home from work.
He looked at me then looked outside to see what seemed like half the school stood there gobbing off.
What did he do ?
He opened the back door and threw me out side and said "sort it"
Yes, I got the shit kicked out of me but i'll tell you one thing Stemo, I oppsing went down fighting and everyone of those oppsers had a range of injuries ranging from a bust nose to a fat lip and a black eye.
Did I need counselling or anti depressant's ?
Did I opps ::) ;D
Did I get picked on again ;D
No I didn't and tbh, the cock of the school became my best mate too because I stood upto him and he respected it :y :y
Kids nowdays are frightened of being frightened.
They cry and scream its not fair when they have a test to see if they are a thick shit or not.
They fall over and they need sympathy.
When I was a kid, I got told to stop been a baby and get up unless I had any broken bones then I got a trip to hospital were if I cried I was told to stop been a girl ::)
We all knew who the Uncle Georges were because we was street wise and we stuck together.
If a dirty old man tried it on, our parents went around there and sorted the perv out simples :y
Were I came from, the only time you saw a priest was at a wedding, christening or funeral.
Poofs or weirdo's went to Sunday school ;D
-
Yes...it's quite obvious that it never did you any harm ;D
-
Yes...it's quite obvious that it never did you any harm ;D
Why thank you kind sir :)
Wanna be my therapist ? ;D ;D
-
I think that unrelenting name calling year after year may cause problems in latter life, but the cut and thrust of school life should allow kids to build up a certain resilience that they can call upon in adult life.
Teachers had no interest in bringing bullies to task when I was at school and some of the more sadistic amongst them would actually join in. :-\
We had a very unhappy obese kid who had his school years made a misery by a sadistic games teacher. One who would made him run around in front of everybody without his shirt.
" look at all that fat wobbling about" he would laugh. "Run it off boy, run it off"
He was a nasty bastard who took great pleasure from humiliating this kid. :-\
Even back then we knew it wasn't right.
-
We had one or two teachers like that at our school, but were taught to be open minded and to speak out against anything out of line... you soon learnt who to take which grievance to ;)
One kid, who suffered badly at the hands of a particularly weaselly bastard, only ever wanted to sing professionally. Said kid has been with the Norwegian National Opera since graduating 8) Said teacher died at 52 from throat cancer... :-X
Going from a boarding school to a blue collar environment was a real eyeopener for me, and something that taught me more in a week than secondary school did in seven years. You either grow a thick skin, giving as good as you get, or you move on. The important thing is that you try and tackle everything with a positive head rather than a selfpitying one otherwise all your shit follows you forever. Trying to make the twenty somethings at work man up rather than running to senior management everytime someone growls is an infuriating task... and one that they won't appreciate until they grow up... ironic really ::)
-
Back on track, invoke Article 50 at 17:00 next Friday and let the 1% sweat...
Joking aside, quit pissarsing around and get the job done ;)
-
I would urge all those criticising the Judgement and/or the Judges to read the actual verdict. It's available for free :
The Summary is here : https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
The Full verdict is here : https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
The critical paragraphs in the summary judgment are Para's 8, 9 and 10. It is clear from these that the Judges believe that invoking Art50 does (either immediately or eventually) alter UK domestic law, and that's the reason they state that Parliament must be involved in the process.
Put two lawyers in a room and ask them a for a legal opinion on something and you will get at least 3 definitive answers. The Govt is going to appeal to the Supreme court - That will take till January. If the Supreme court decide they need to refer something to the ECJ then we're talking years before the Supreme Court can pass judgement. The Govt should simply crack on with drafting a simple enabling bill and get it before parliament this month. If they wait till January they will have lost at least 2 months if the verdict still goes against them.
-
I believe the judges to be wrong, and will therefore continue to criticise them. ;)
-
I believe the judges to be wrong, and will therefore continue to criticise them. ;)
In which of the 111 paragraphs of the full judgment do you believe they are wrong? And why?
-
Invoking article 50 wont change any laws, domestic or otherwise. We are adopting all EU law when we leave, with the intention of changing the law after we have left. So the courts should have no jurisdiction until it is certain that domestic law is to be changed.
But, invoking Art50 makes it certain that domestic law will be changed. Even the Govt haven't argued that line.
If this isn't an attempt to block the will of the people, why didn't this woman go to court when the Govt. sent a leaflet to every household saying that they would implement by the result of the referendum ?
The "will of the people" has virtually no meaning under the UK constitution - it's the "Will of Parliament" that is sovereign. The people simply get to elect their own MP. They don't get to vote for a government or Prime Minister.
Parliament agreed to ascertain the "Will of the People" by passing a bill to hold the referendum, which was passed by (as you've stated) a 6-1 majority. But critically it didn't make the result binding (as it did with the Scottish referendum and the Electorial Change Referendum). So now we're at the point where the "Will of Parliament" has to be enacted.
-
Invoking article 50 wont change any laws, domestic or otherwise. We are adopting all EU law when we leave, with the intention of changing the law after we have left. So the courts should have no jurisdiction until it is certain that domestic law is to be changed.
But, invoking Art50 makes it certain that domestic law will be changed. Even the Govt haven't argued that line.
If this isn't an attempt to block the will of the people, why didn't this woman go to court when the Govt. sent a leaflet to every household saying that they would implement by the result of the referendum ?
The "will of the people" has virtually no meaning under the UK constitution - it's the "Will of Parliament" that is sovereign. The people simply get to elect their own MP. They don't get to vote for a government or Prime Minister.
Parliament agreed to ascertain the "Will of the People" by passing a bill to hold the referendum, which was passed by (as you've stated) a 6-1 majority. But critically it didn't make the result binding (as it did with the Scottish referendum and the Electorial Change Referendum). So now we're at the point where the "Will of Parliament" has to be enacted.
No it doesn't. When we leave the EU we will adopt all EU law, so nothing changes. The present government intend to review those laws over a period of time and repeal many of them.
If we arrive at that point then the judges will have jurisdiction to intervene to give Parliament a say, if they aren't being allowed that.
Before that point, the judges are acting outside of their legal powers. Simple really.
-
No it doesn't. When we leave the EU we will adopt all EU law, so nothing changes. The present government intend to review those laws over a period of time and repeal many of them.
If we arrive at that point then the judges will have jurisdiction to intervene to give Parliament a say, if they aren't being allowed that.
Before that point, the judges are acting outside of their legal powers. Simple really.
Para 66 of the full judgment deals with this.
Only Parliament can amend and/or repeal the 1972 European Communities Act because it is primary legislation. However, invoking Art50 in and of itself results in UK Subjects losing rights granted by virtue of the Act. Royal Prerogative cannot be used to amend/repeal primary legislation. That's the crux of the High Court decision.
The fact/promise of the Govt to repeal/replace the 1972 act and incorporate EU law into UK law directly at some time in the future is no good since there can be no guarantee that Parliament (which is sovereign) will approve any such legislation. Indeed the constitution doesn't allow any Govt to bind the hands of a future Govt in any way shape or form.
-
Whoever signed upto that idea needs hanging... Basically what you are suggesting is that however much we want to leave, we cannot legally do so :-\
My Gay Marriage/Gay Divorce analogy was tongue in cheek, no pun intended, but actually seems quite an apt appraisal of the situation :-X
-
Whoever signed upto that idea needs hanging... Basically what you are suggesting is that however much we want to leave, we cannot legally do so :-\
Hanging is against the Article 2 of the European Convention on Human rights ::)
No, no-one is saying that the UK cannot legally leave the EU. What they're saying is that the Government alone (meaning the PM Teresa May) cannot begin the process without the express agreement of Parliament (meaning a majority of the 650 MP's) - and perhaps the Lords too.
-
I would urge all those criticising the Judgement and/or the Judges to read the actual verdict. It's available for free :
The Summary is here : https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
The Full verdict is here : https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
The critical paragraphs in the summary judgment are Para's 8, 9 and 10. It is clear from these that the Judges believe that invoking Art50 does (either immediately or eventually) alter UK domestic law, and that's the reason they state that Parliament must be involved in the process.
Put two lawyers in a room and ask them a for a legal opinion on something and you will get at least 3 definitive answers. The Govt is going to appeal to the Supreme court - That will take till January. If the Supreme court decide they need to refer something to the ECJ then we're talking years before the Supreme Court can pass judgement. The Govt should simply crack on with drafting a simple enabling bill and get it before parliament this month. If they wait till January they will have lost at least 2 months if the verdict still goes against them.
So why has more Europe with directive after directive, with no debate or vote been allowed then under the same act? More Europe, nod it through, less Europe get a judge to stop it. This may well be the basis according to the link I included from 4 lawyers including 2 QC's.
-
Whoever signed upto that idea needs hanging... Basically what you are suggesting is that however much we want to leave, we cannot legally do so :-\
Hanging is against the Article 2 of the European Convention on Human rights ::)
No, no-one is saying that the UK cannot legally leave the EU. What they're saying is that the Government alone (meaning the PM Teresa May) cannot begin the process without the express agreement of Parliament (meaning a majority of the 650 MP's) - and perhaps the Lords too.
Would it be enough for the MPs to be obliged to vote as per their constituencies? That would ensure that the outcome of the referendum, ie the will of the people, be respected?
-
Would it be enough for the MPs to be obliged to vote as per their constituencies? That would ensure that the outcome of the referendum, ie the will of the people, be respected?
No. Parliament is sovereign, not the constituents. You cannot legally force/oblige an MP to vote any particular way. MP's are free to make up their own minds. The constituents are free to tell their MP why they should vote one way or t'other.
-
So why has more Europe with directive after directive, with no debate or vote been allowed then under the same act? More Europe, nod it through, less Europe get a judge to stop it. This may well be the basis according to the link I included from 4 lawyers including 2 QC's.
Because Parliament voted to introduce the 1972 European Communities act into Law. Part of that act allows European Laws to have legal effect within the UK. The Judges have ruled that since parliament voted in this primary legislation that only parliament can do something that has the effect of repealing part of it. If you read the full judgment you will see that both parties agree that invoking Art50 has the effect of repealing parts of European Law from UK law, and hence the requirement for parliament to do it.
-
So, in summary....even though the majority of the electorate voted for something they wanted, the final decision lies with the lawmakers in parliament. Whatever they decide, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it and we will have to suck it up.
My thread about Vlad wasn't too far out, then.
-
They'll all be unemployed come the revolution then >:(
-
I still think the judgment is the wrong decision on the basis that Article 50 doesn't in itself change the law. It's all down to interpretation of the law really, but I agree that the government should get on with a vote in Parliament and use the Parliament Act to override the House of Lords where there are 142 unelected Lib Dem peers salivating at the prospect of frustrating the will of the people.
Furthermore it is an accepted convention in this country that the Royal Prerogative is used to sign and amend international treaties, and Parliament ratifies the decision afterwards. The Lisbon Treaty is a good example of this where Gordon Brown famously slipped in the back door to sign it in October 2007, but it was not ratified by Parliament until March 2008.
So why not use the Royal Prerogative to annul an international treaty? The difficulty lies in the fact that Article 50 is irreversible and the government will be presenting Parliament with a ' fait accompli " Although, technically Parliament could have rejected the Lisbon Treaty as it transferred powers from the UK to the EU, as it had already been signed by the government they were unlikely to do so.
All the politicians are coming out with same old platitudes " While we respect the result of the referendum blah blah blah.... " What they should do is accept the result and allow the government to get on with the business of implementing it!
-
So, in summary....even though the majority of the electorate voted for something they wanted, the final decision lies with the lawmakers in parliament. Whatever they decide, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it and we will have to suck it up.
Correct. The electorate (i.e. us) elect an MP to represent us. That MP can then vote any which way they choose. Parliament cold vote to into law that the Moon made of cheese, and from that point forwards legally the moon IS made of cheese, and the Judges would be bound to rule that the Moon is made of cheese.
The only input into the process that the public has is to try and persuade your MP which way to vote. You can arrange to visit your MP if you feel strongly enough on any matter.
-
So, in summary....even though the majority of the electorate voted for something they wanted, the final decision lies with the lawmakers in parliament. Whatever they decide, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it and we will have to suck it up.
Correct. The electorate (i.e. us) elect an MP to represent us. That MP can then vote any which way they choose. Parliament cold vote to into law that the Moon made of cheese, and from that point forwards legally the moon IS made of cheese, and the Judges would be bound to rule that the Moon is made of cheese.
The only input into the process that the public has is to try and persuade your MP which way to vote. You can arrange to visit your MP if you feel strongly enough on any matter.
Should I take a gun, do you think? :-\
Seriously, if he lives in a constituency that voted to leave, no visit should be necessary.
-
Represents....represents, not lives :-[
-
I still think the judgment is the wrong decision on the basis that Article 50 doesn't in itself change the law.
The Secretary of State did not make that argument though. The argument used was basically that there was nothing in the 1972 ECA that removed the right of the Govt to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke Art50. The Judges did not accept that argument (Para 80 & 81 of the full Judgment).
I'd suggest that the Secretary of state did not attempt to use your argument because they knew it was incorrect and would fail.
Furthermore it is an accepted convention in this country that the Royal Prerogative is used to sign and amend international treaties, and Parliament ratifies the decision afterwards. The Lisbon Treaty is a good example of this where Gordon Brown famously slipped in the back door to sign it in October 2007, but it was not ratified by Parliament until March 2008.
So why not use the Royal Prerogative to annul an international treaty? The difficulty lies in the fact that Article 50 is irreversible and the government will be presenting Parliament with a ' fait accompli " Although, technically Parliament could have rejected the Lisbon Treaty as it transferred powers from the UK to the EU, as it had already been signed by the government they were unlikely to do so.
The problem s that if Teresa May "slips in the back door and signs Art50", then you're in for years and years of legal arguments in the ECJ. Why? Because Section 1 of Article 50 states "Any Member State may withdraw from the Union in accordance with it's own constitutional arrangements". The UK High court has ruled that the constitutional arrangements in the UK require Parliament to approve the invocation of Art50. Therefore until/unledd the UK Supreme court rules differently the EU should reject any application under Art50 made by you/me/Teresa May until/unless she gets Parliamentary approval. If they don't then someone is bound to complain to the ECJ.
All the politicians are coming out with same old platitudes " While we respect the result of the referendum blah blah blah.... " What they should do is accept the result and allow the government to get on with the business of implementing it!
Agreed. But to just get on with it required the Govt to bring something before Parliament, which so far they haven't done.
-
Why was none of this even hinted at before the referendum?
Legal, legally necessary, or legal loophole exploitation, the whole thing smacks of the 1% throwing their toys out of the pram >:(
-
Why was none of this even hinted at before the referendum?
Because everyone , including the leave campaigners, expected a remain result. Consequently, nobody saw any need to make any plans to leave. It includes when to do it, how to do it, what to negotiate for and who is going to the work. That was always obvious from the shambolic nature of the campaign, and the embarrassingly comic machinations afterwards. Machinations on both sides, and all of the political parties which is a oppsing disgrace.
-
So, in summary....even though the majority of the electorate voted for something they wanted, the final decision lies with the lawmakers in parliament. Whatever they decide, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it and we will have to suck it up.
Correct. The electorate (i.e. us) elect an MP to represent us. That MP can then vote any which way they choose. Parliament cold vote to into law that the Moon made of cheese, and from that point forwards legally the moon IS made of cheese, and the Judges would be bound to rule that the Moon is made of cheese.
The only input into the process that the public has is to try and persuade your MP which way to vote. You can arrange to visit your MP if you feel strongly enough on any matter.
Sure. In theory the MP's can vote however they choose.
But would they dare to?
I don't believe they would.
-
The problem s that if Teresa May "slips in the back door and signs Art50", then you're in for years and years of legal arguments in the ECJ. Why? Because Section 1 of Article 50 states "Any Member State may withdraw from the Union in accordance with it's own constitutional arrangements". The UK High court has ruled that the constitutional arrangements in the UK require Parliament to approve the invocation of Art50.
This is true. It's too late now and we have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court, so the government should have forestalled the legal challenges and delivered the notice under Article 50 on the 24th June, which is what they said would happen if we voted to leave. Of course we now know there was no plan for a leave vote......
The government seem very confident that this won't derail the BREXIT process so I think they've planned for this to go to the Supreme Court all along. I'm sure if the High Court had ruled in favour of the government Gina Miller and her backers would have appealed.
I can't see it ending up in the ECJ though as that would be farcical for the EU's highest court to rule on a member states constitutional arrangements as it's trying to leave the EU! Unless it's all part of the establishment stitch up to prove to the plebs that we can't live without the EU! ::)
-
Best figures I can find for how the 650 MP's voted in the referendum is as follows.
480 Remain.
159 leave.
11 undeclared.
But would they dare to vote like this knowing the result of 23rd June?
-
The best estimates I've seen for how each constituency voted, is that 421 MP's constituencys voted to leave the EU. So 64.7%, although I've seen estimates closer to 75%.
Why estimates? Because the referendum was organised by local authority area rather than political constituency as in a General Election. Why it was done like this is anyone's guess.....
-
Two articles below give the viewpoint of why the authors think the judges got it wrong.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-case/
http://www.ukip.org/high_court_judgement_a_political_not_legal_decision
The easy response is "they would say that wouldn't they", but the first one in particular, puts forward a pretty strong case, in my opinion.
-
They've obviously been reading this thread and have taken up my argument! ;D
-
I can't see it ending up in the ECJ though as that would be farcical for the EU's highest court to rule on a member states constitutional arrangements as it's trying to leave the EU! Unless it's all part of the establishment stitch up to prove to the plebs that we can't live without the EU! ::)
I agree the ECJ won't get involved in an individual countries constitutional arrangements - indeed they cannot because each countries parliament is sovereign.
However, if the Govt do appeal, and UK Supreme court decided it needs a definitive verdict on some point of EU law (for example whether Art50 is reversible or not), then the only court that can answer that for certain is the ECJ. That's why I think the Govt would be better advised to accept the High Court decision and crack on with consulting Parliament.
-
Two articles below give the viewpoint of why the authors think the judges got it wrong.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-case/
http://www.ukip.org/high_court_judgement_a_political_not_legal_decision
The easy response is "they would say that wouldn't they", but the first one in particular, puts forward a pretty strong case, in my opinion.
The problem for those that argue that the court has no jurisdiction until after Art50 is actually invoked and/or ECA72 is revoked (as your second link states) is that both parties agreed that the decision to invoke Art50 is a justiciable matter (which means both parties accept that the court does have jurisdiction). The relevant bits of the full judgment are Paras 4 and 5 where this is stated as common ground.
You can't win an argument on a point that you both agree on. The Govt could change tack and decide it does not think UK courts have jurisdiction, but that just makes them look like a bunch of shambolic part time amateurs, and I can't see the Supreme court overruling the High court on that point alone.
-
I can't see it ending up in the ECJ though as that would be farcical for the EU's highest court to rule on a member states constitutional arrangements as it's trying to leave the EU! Unless it's all part of the establishment stitch up to prove to the plebs that we can't live without the EU! ::)
I agree the ECJ won't get involved in an individual countries constitutional arrangements - indeed they cannot because each countries parliament is sovereign.
However, if the Govt do appeal, and UK Supreme court decided it needs a definitive verdict on some point of EU law (for example whether Art50 is reversible or not), then the only court that can answer that for certain is the ECJ. That's why I think the Govt would be better advised to accept the High Court decision and crack on with consulting Parliament.
Interesting point that, whether notification under A50 is reversible or not, as there is nothing in A50 which specifically provides for this.
Therefore it's arguable that A50 is reversible, with say the agreement of the other 27 members of the Council of Europe.
If A50 is not irreversible, then it follows that it is perfectly reasonable and legal for the government to invoke A50 using the Royal Prerogative, as it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law.
-
Interesting point that, whether notification under A50 is reversible or not, as there is nothing in A50 which specifically provides for this.
Therefore it's arguable that A50 is reversible, with say the agreement of the other 27 members of the Council of Europe.
No, A50 is basically set in stone. It doesn't require the agreement of the other 27 on anything. It is what it is. If there is question about its meaning or intent, then it's the ECJ that has final say, not the other 27.
The only way that the other 27 matter is if the treaty is changed and that treaty change somehow modifies/repeals/clarifies A50. However, even in that instance, it's not the other 27 - its all 28 including the UK. We are still in the EU till we leave.
If A50 is not irreversible, then it follows that it is perfectly reasonable and legal for the government to invoke A50 using the Royal Prerogative, as it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law.
It's actually the opposite. If A50 is reversible, then the Govt could probably use Royal Prerogative to invoke it because at some stage in the future Parliament could vote to revoke the A50 notification - say if it didn't like the terms of the exit deal. If A50 is not reversible then even if Parliament did vote to revoke, it would have no effect, and we would be 'booted' out after the 2 year period like it or not.
-
Two articles below give the viewpoint of why the authors think the judges got it wrong.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-case/
http://www.ukip.org/high_court_judgement_a_political_not_legal_decision
The easy response is "they would say that wouldn't they", but the first one in particular, puts forward a pretty strong case, in my opinion.
The problem for those that argue that the court has no jurisdiction until after Art50 is actually invoked and/or ECA72 is revoked (as your second link states) is that both parties agreed that the decision to invoke Art50 is a justiciable matter (which means both parties accept that the court does have jurisdiction). The relevant bits of the full judgment are Paras 4 and 5 where this is stated as common ground.
You can't win an argument on a point that you both agree on. The Govt could change tack and decide it does not think UK courts have jurisdiction, but that just makes them look like a bunch of shambolic part time amateurs, and I can't see the Supreme court overruling the High court on that point alone.
Assuming all of that to be correct, then it indeed proves that the legal people who compiled the Govt. case actually are a bunch of shambolic part time amateurs.
We are where we are because they are incompetent by the look of it.
So, tomorrow morning they should be clearing their desks, and consigned to duty solicitor duties in provincial courthouses, but of course that wont happen because no-one is ever to blame for anything anymore. ::)
-
Interesting point that, whether notification under A50 is reversible or not, as there is nothing in A50 which specifically provides for this.
Therefore it's arguable that A50 is reversible, with say the agreement of the other 27 members of the Council of Europe.
No, A50 is basically set in stone. It doesn't require the agreement of the other 27 on anything. It is what it is. If there is question about its meaning or intent, then it's the ECJ that has final say, not the other 27.
The only way that the other 27 matter is if the treaty is changed and that treaty change somehow modifies/repeals/clarifies A50. However, even in that instance, it's not the other 27 - its all 28 including the UK. We are still in the EU till we leave.
If A50 is not irreversible, then it follows that it is perfectly reasonable and legal for the government to invoke A50 using the Royal Prerogative, as it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law.
It's actually the opposite. If A50 is reversible, then the Govt could probably use Royal Prerogative to invoke it because at some stage in the future Parliament could vote to revoke the A50 notification - say if it didn't like the terms of the exit deal. If A50 is not reversible then even if Parliament did vote to revoke, it would have no effect, and we would be 'booted' out after the 2 year period like it or not.
No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. ;)
To my earlier point that there is nothing in the text of A50 pertaining to whether it is reversible or not. That point is clearly not set in stone as it is open to interpretation. The 2 year negotiation period can be extended with the agreement of the 27, so I think that with the agreement of the 27 a member state could withdraw it's A50 notice. However, given it is uncharted territory a ruling from the ECJ might be necessary.
-
There won't be a mechanism for reversal as it was deemed than noone would ever
dare imagine to leave the Union of harmonic love...
By that I mean have the 'dangle berries' to invoke Article 50...
-
No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. ;)
'Fraid not. IMHO ::)
If A50 is reversible then invoking it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it.
If A50 is irreversible then invoking it does necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can not be used to invoke it.
It's largely irrelevant whether it's reversible or not though because the Govt won't want to go down that route. Doing so is virtually bound to result in a referral to the ECJ which will delay things for 2+ years. Hence the Govt won't do anything that risks a ECJ referral.
To my earlier point that there is nothing in the text of A50 pertaining to whether it is reversible or not. That point is clearly not set in stone as it is open to interpretation. The 2 year negotiation period can be extended with the agreement of the 27, so I think that with the agreement of the 27 a member state could withdraw it's A50 notice. However, given it is uncharted territory a ruling from the ECJ might be necessary.
I meant A50 itself is set in stone - It's part of the treaties and the text ain't going to be modified. I agree that the meaning/intent of A50 pertaining to whether it is reversible or not is unclear, and therefore open to interpretation. The only body that can make that interpretation is the ECJ. The other 27 have no direct say, bar making representations to the ECJ as to why they think it is/is not reversible. I suppose if all 27 stand up in the ECJ and state that they accept it is reversible it may sway the court's decision, but it's a very, very high risk strategy. Anyway, ECJ verdicts typically take 2 years, so a March A50 notification via that route is virtually impossible.
-
No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. ;)
'Fraid not. IMHO ::)
If A50 is reversible then invoking it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it.
If A50 is irreversible then invoking it does necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can not be used to invoke it.
Look my original post where I said " If A50 is not irreversible..."
You disagreed but went on to say the same thing but using the term " reversible "
Not irreversible and reversible are the same thing, so we agreed! :P
-
No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. ;)
'Fraid not. IMHO ::)
If A50 is reversible then invoking it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it.
If A50 is irreversible then invoking it does necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can not be used to invoke it.
Look my original post where I said " If A50 is not irreversible..."
You disagreed but went on to say the same thing but using the term " reversible "
Not irreversible and reversible are the same thing, so we agreed! :P
Ahh, yes sorry - I misread your double negative "not irreversible". Blame the bottle of Bordeaux consumed over my roast Lamb, roast tatties and all the veg dinner. :y
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years :-\
Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years :-\
Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.
No import concerns with those last two :D
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years :-\
Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.
No import concerns with those last two :D
Chinese rice wine is quite good, either that get used to Chilian plonk, they'll do a trade deal with anyone! :y
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years :-\
Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
I don't know about banned. But the exchange rate decline since the vote has put around £1 on the cost price of a lower-mid range French wine. Last year I was getting €1.40 now its €1.08, plus European transport costs are higher. This isn't such a huge problem at mid and high end market, but for the cheapos it will make a difference. Either the price will have to go up, or the quality goes down (even further ::) )
-
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Effing traitor - burn him. Surely a Brexiteer should be insisting on the imperial equivalent of 568ml :D
-
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Effing traitor - burn him. Surely a Brexiteer should be insisting on the imperial equivalent of 568ml :D
Quite. Whoever heard of drinking 0.88 pints of cidre, sorry :-[ cider.
-
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Effing traitor - burn him. Surely a Brexiteer should be insisting on the imperial equivalent of 568ml :D
I always sampled a couple of bottles of Stella in 284 ML form. Exactly half an imperial pint. :y
-
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Effing traitor - burn him. Surely a Brexiteer should be insisting on the imperial equivalent of 568ml :D
I always sampled a couple of bottles of Stella in 284 ML form. Exactly half an imperial pint. :y
When you're in a hole, stop digging. Stella FFS. We've only just recovered from putting one traitor on the bonfire - you aiming to be the next? ::)
-
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Effing traitor - burn him. Surely a Brexiteer should be insisting on the imperial equivalent of 568ml :D
I always sampled a couple of bottles of Stella in 284 ML form. Exactly half an imperial pint. :y
When you're in a hole, stop digging. Stella FFS. We've only just recovered from putting one traitor on the bonfire - you aiming to be the next? ::)
Absolutely ! A hanging offence . .
Kronenburg 1664 is way better. :-X. ;)
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years :-\
Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Getting ready for Christmas M'lud. :y
At 8.2% ABV it won't take many before it is Lord Opti the red nosed.... ::) :P ;D
-
Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.
So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years :-\
Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.
Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.
I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose. :)
Getting ready for Christmas M'lud. :y
At 8.2% ABV it won't take many before it is Lord Opti the red nosed.... ::) :P ;D
I've been drinking quite a bit of cider recently. It's made from apples so counts as one of your five a day. :)
-
I've been drinking quite a bit of cider recently. It's made from apples so counts as one of your five a day. :)
I apply similar logic to vegetable intake - a cow, lamb, chicken etc. has already consumed vegetables so I get them second hand by eating meat.