Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lazydocker]

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

[LC0112G]

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.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Rods2]

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

Was it a 'political' interpretation rather than a sound legal one? If so, then it is likely to be overturned on appeal.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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! 

[Nick W]

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.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

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.

[ozzycat]

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

[STEMO]

Have I got news for you have just explained everything, I feel happier now.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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. 

I'll say it again, the High Court decision is part of a grand establishment stitch up! 

[LC0112G]

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. 

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.

[Entwood]

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. 

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

[Sir Tigger KC]

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! 

That's my layman's take anyway! 

I always knew I was in the wrong job! Who do you see about becoming a M'lud Justice? 

[LC0112G]

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. 

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.