Print

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

[STEMO]

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.

[Doctor Gollum]

They'll all be unemployed come the revolution then

[Sir Tigger KC]

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!

[LC0112G]

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.

[STEMO]

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.

[STEMO]

Represents....represents, not lives 

[LC0112G]

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.

[Doctor Gollum]

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

[Nick W]

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.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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! 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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?

[Sir Tigger KC]

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.....

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

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.

[Sir Tigger KC]

They've obviously been reading this thread and have taken up my argument!