Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

It is still happening, but this is probably better for both sides, as more people will be involved.
It should mean that it won't just be one party/group deciding on what's best for us all.

so cost 7 figures and took 83 days that could have been used to try and get the legislation they needed through. I get the feeling the Appeal was a delaying tactic because they didnt have a clue they wanted

(24-01-2017 13:50 )skully Wrote:  It is still happening, but this is probably better for both sides, as more people will be involved.
It should mean that it won't just be one party/group deciding on what's best for us all.

I wouldn't be too certain if I was you, this is a free vote I doubt whips will be involved.

The ruling clearly states that the PM did not need the vote and could have triggered Article 50 without it, but they found a loop hole that gives the remainers (which most of the high court judges are) an opputunatly to over turn a demographic vote by the people when the government had already voted to give the decision to the people.

It may not happen, probably wont but it might be closer than you think. SNP have 54 seats alone. Labour party offcial line was remain, and whatever conservative rebels there are.

It all boils down to whether they are voting with concience and what they really believe, or adhere to a demographic vote by the poeple; after all, if you believe the remain camp, apart from a few racist, people didn't know what they were doing and didn't mean to, really really didn't mean to, vote leave and it's all a silly mistake.

Funny how the pound rallied when she annouced an hard brexit and now it's droped again.

(24-01-2017 15:40 )HannahsPet Wrote:  so cost 7 figures and took 83 days that could have been used to try and get the legislation they needed through. I get the feeling the Appeal was a delaying tactic because they didnt have a clue they wanted

It's a desperate last act of the remainers, this government vote wasn't needed and three of the supreme court judges aknowledge this.

It's the very very last chance for people to stop Brexit if that's what they really think is best for Britian.

But this vote up coming will also be the last nail in the remainers coffin.

One good thing is to come from it, either way, whether there's a shock remain decision or just making it official a final decision will finally fucking be made one way or the other.

Oooooo look I can say naughty words

(24-01-2017 12:35 )wackawoo Wrote:  Since most of the Judges were remainers, I couldn't see that coming.

Are you suggesting Remainers are more likely to be competent and level-headed and good at doing their jobs properly?

Quite staggering that people still don't get what this case was about. It is not ,never was, and will not affect 'brexit'. That will still happen, won't even be delayed. What this case has established is that Parliament is sovereign and even our unelected PM can't override the rule of law. Surely this is what the rabid brexit brigade were pretending to be concerned about, but now apparently is not worth defending, weird that.

This case at least shows that whatever Theresa May and the raving right might want we have not yet descended into a dictatorship and government is still via Parliament.

(24-01-2017 22:11 )brummie Wrote:  Quite staggering that people still don't get what this case was about. It is not ,never was, and will not affect 'brexit'. That will still happen, won't even be delayed. What this case has established is that Parliament is sovereign and even our unelected PM can't override the rule of law. Surely this is what the rabid brexit brigade were pretending to be concerned about, but now apparently is not worth defending, weird that.

This case at least shows that whatever Theresa May and the raving right might want we have not yet descended into a dictatorship and government is still via Parliament.

how many lawyers have cashed blank cheques on the back of this

(24-01-2017 21:44 )Doddle Wrote:  Are you suggesting Remainers are more likely to be competent and level-headed and good at doing their jobs properly?

No, becasue they clearly stated that by law she could trigger article 50, or at least did not need the MP's vote.

They then rule against that.

But, at least nobody can moan about it which is a good thing.

(24-01-2017 22:11 )brummie Wrote:  What this case has established is that Parliament is sovereign and even our unelected PM can't override the rule of law. Surely this is what the rabid brexit brigade were pretending to be concerned about, but now apparently is not worth defending, weird that.

This case at least shows that whatever Theresa May and the raving right might want we have not yet descended into a dictatorship and government is still via Parliament.

But they said by law she could trigger it if she so wished, three judges upheld the government appeal.

The court decision is nothing to do with UK soverignty at all, it's becasue the EU was making laws over the UK that the point of law was called on.

^ And 8 decided Parliament should be sovereign. The original act setting out a non binding referendum made no arrangements for allowing the government to ride rough shod over Parliaments rights and reading out the judgement, Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said: "By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so."

He added: "Withdrawal effects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law, as well as changing legal rights.

"The UK's constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by Parliament." in other words only Parliament has the right to make changes that significantly affect the constitutional rights of people not Prime Ministers acting uni-laterälly . Parliament gave EU the right to make laws on our behalf and only Parliament can take that back.