Print

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

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Doctor Gollum]

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 Said teacher died at 52 from throat cancer...

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

[Doctor Gollum]

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

[LC0112G]

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.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I believe the judges to be wrong, and will therefore continue to criticise them. 

[LC0112G]

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?

[LC0112G]

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.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

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.

[LC0112G]

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.

[Doctor Gollum]

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

[LC0112G]

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.

[Rods2]

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.

[Doctor Gollum]

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?

[LC0112G]

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.

[LC0112G]

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.