(04-11-2016 22:50 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]These judges have just popped up from no where it seems to me and stated, well no there, this is not legal, we have found this here loop hole that says you have to take it to parlimentery vote, of which two thirds are remain.
When did reaffirming the law of the land, and Parliament's sovereignty become a 'loophole' ?
I think you will find 'loopholes' are what the government will be looking for when they appeal.
(05-11-2016 03:34 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]When did reaffirming the law of the land, and Parliament's sovereignty become a 'loophole' ?
I think you will find 'loopholes' are what the government will be looking for when they appeal.
All loopholes are lawful, that's exactly what they are.They are laws, sometime obscure and ancient, to wiggle out of a something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
""A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes,
elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil liberties.""
It could be argued that the Royale prerogative was a loophole to ignore parliament, but was over ruled.
I did read earlier that one of the judges was heavily involve with the EU, no idea if that's true or not.
There's certainly no better chance to over turn Brexit and remain in the EU than now. Though I see some MP's saying they are for remain but will vote for brexit because that was the 'will of the people', which to me seems pretty dumb when you consider it was 48/52 and a lot of lazy ass young people didn't have an app to vote so didn't, coupled with those who didn't know what they were voting for or regret the vote.
If these MP's are absolutely certian brexit will be the ruin of britian as we know it, they should vote remain.
(04-11-2016 22:57 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]No the Judges didnt pop up from nowhere on there own there was a courtcase that was brought by someone against the goverment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/201...-challenge
Popped out of no where to me, and a lot of others, didn't even know there was a challange.
I always knew the process would be challenged at some point and it was. Democracy in this country has definitely died a slow painful death. When so few people who didn't like the result in the first place and have powerful friends to help them mount a challenge and ride roughshod over the wishes of the many then this country has clearly gone to the dogs.
If the government lose the appeal in the Supreme Court when it happens) and which I suspect is very likely then the Brexit process is as it stands would be dead in the water.
If all of the above happened I can only see Mrs May resigning and there is a General Election because I think any vote on Brexit now in the Commons would also become a Commons Confidence vote as well in all but name and if she loses that, there is no chance of Brexit ever happening. And any new government would probably have to call a second referendum after taking power to revive the process and even now I think this whole Brexit thing is an issue that any government can never fully resolve to a successful outcome and it saddens me that our wishes from the result have never been fully respected by those judges. And I saw one of the actually worked for Tony Blair as well!!
What are the chances of someone who voted Brexit mounting a challenge to make the referendum vote LEGALLY BINDING? And I still don't get why Dodgy Dave didn't tell May to call a snap election to increase the tory majority in commons to ensure whatever happened in the referendum she had enough support in the house for a clear mandate in the commons and that in itself is probably about 100 - 150 seats I reckon and I feel 15 seats would be wiped out pretty easily. what those MPs who voted to remain say in public, i.e. "we will vote for Brexit to keep the peple happy" they will simply go with their original decision anyway and kill of Brexit altogether. Even if there is enough support in tory and labour ranks to vote for Brexit but I fully suspect that two thirds will still be enough to get the vote in Remains' favour
^^ Sadly it's not a good post because it is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding standing of the judges decision. They have (as has been repeatedly said) reaffirmed that under the law the decision to invoke Article 59 must be taken by Parliament. They have made no comment on the rights or wrongs of Brexit because it has no relevance to their decision. They have reaffirmed that Parliament is sovereign which is what many Brexiteers wanted. All the ruling does is say the current democratic procedure according to the laws of this land must be followed.
I may personally regret the country voted for Brexit but the point now is surely to exit the EU in the best way possible for the country. Full debate in parliament will help that.
I would just say that the intemperate attacks on the 3 judges are highly objectionable. What relevance to their decision is the fact that one of them is gay or where they previously worked? Death threats for upholding the law? I'm afraid you Brexiteers do your cause no good if you support the rule of the mob. Surely you are better than that? [/php]
(05-11-2016 04:54 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2016 03:34 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2016 22:50 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]These judges have just popped up from no where it seems to me and stated, well no there, this is not legal, we have found this here loop hole that says you have to take it to parlimentery vote, of which two thirds are remain.
When did reaffirming the law of the land, and Parliament's sovereignty become a 'loophole' ?
I think you will find 'loopholes' are what the government will be looking for when they appeal.
All loopholes are lawful, that's exactly what they are.They are laws, sometime obscure and ancient, to wiggle out of a something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
""A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil liberties.""
It could be argued that the Royale prerogative was a loophole to ignore parliament, but was over ruled.
Glad you can agree for once.
(05-11-2016 04:54 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]I did read earlier that one of the judges was heavily involve with the EU, no idea if that's true or not.
Are you saying he's corrupt? Now who's clutching at straws.
It make you wonder what would have happened if May/Cameron had triggered article 50 straight after the referedum results.
The two year countdown would have commenced with the EU.
But it now appears that both houses of Parliment have to clear it first.
And Parliment will want to see what the deal is before they vote.
But the EU will only negotiate after article 50 has been triggered.
Confusing..