Government v Parliament: Britain’s Brexit battle goes to court

[rockingrobin]

17 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.

Khun Han, 

I have just looked through the transcript of the courts morning session, the judges were made aware of Gina Millers preference of remain during the referendum ,by the claimants lawyers 

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Khun Han, 

I have just looked through the transcript of the courts morning session, the judges were made aware of Gina Millers preference of remain during the referendum ,by the claimants lawyers 

 

Whilst Gina Miller has tried to be very careful with her words since bringing this action, she put her foot in it somewhat in her Sky interview. This case was brought in the hope that getting parliament involved would put a spanner in the works of brexit, using parliamentary democracy as window dressing for the case. All sides know this, and, hopefully, the judges will take this (and the claimant's lawyer's lie) into account.

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Whilst Gina Miller has tried to be very careful with her words since bringing this action, she put her foot in it somewhat in her Sky interview. This case was brought in the hope that getting parliament involved would put a spanner in the works of brexit, using parliamentary democracy as window dressing for the case. All sides know this, and, hopefully, the judges will take this (and the claimant's lawyer's lie) into account.

The court will give its judgement based upon legalities, to denigrate a person for exercising their right to challenge is quite bewildering.

The case is not about parliamentary democracy but the extent and scope of the executives power to take away citizens rights using the prerogative .

 

[dick dasterdly]

At the end of the day we all know that the vast majority of MPs want to stop Brexit, so they want a legal decision that says that its down to parliament - not the population who voted in the referendum to leave the EU.

 

If the courts determine that its a parliamentary choice, its obvious that the parliamentary choice will be to stay in the EU.

[ilostmypassword]

On 10/14/2016 at 10:10 AM, Muhendis said:

Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.

Actually there are about 400,000 pensioners living abroad in Europe. At least according to this:

https://www.ft.com/content/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de

[rockingrobin]

20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

At the end of the day we all know that the vast majority of MPs want to stop Brexit, so they want a legal decision that says that its down to parliament - not the population who voted in the referendum to leave the EU.

 

If the courts determine that its a parliamentary choice, its obvious that the parliamentary choice will be to stay in the EU.

Whilst MPs are selected to represent their constituencies , their is no legal obligation to accept the result, they probably feel there is a political duty to do so.

I suspect rather than reversing the referendum MPs would like to fully involved.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The court will give its judgement based upon legalities, to denigrate a person for exercising their right to challenge is quite bewildering.

The case is not about parliamentary democracy but the extent and scope of the executives power to take away citizens rights using the prerogative .

 

I'm not denigrating Gina Miller for excercising her right to bring this action: I'm denigrating her for her motivation in bringing it, and her lack of honesty (her 'my fellow petitioners were scared off' tale has already been exposed by the media).

[Khun Han]

12 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Whilst MPs are selected to represent their constituencies , their is no legal obligation to accept the result, they probably feel there is a political duty to do so.

I suspect rather than reversing the referendum MPs would like to fully involved.

 

And I suspect that they will do their level best to sabotage brexit without actually calling a vote to reverse it.

[rockingrobin]

On 10/14/2016 at 4:10 AM, Muhendis said:

Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.

 

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually there are about 400,000 pensioners living abroad in Europe. At least according to this:

https://www.ft.com/content/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de

I think Margaret  Thatchers speech  regarding the referendum in 1975 is apt in where we are today

  How tired one gets of the well-worn clichç ' the full-hearted consent of the people '. What exactly is meant by this? Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case, we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. All these laws were passed not only without this full-hearted consent nonsense, but, if the polls are to be believed, in the face of a determined 70 to 80 per cent. of the electors' wishes to the contrary. 

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1975/mar/11/eec-membership-referendum

 

The speech is long,with numerous interruptions but well worth reading

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Whilst MPs are selected to represent their constituencies , their is no legal obligation to accept the result, they probably feel there is a political duty to do so.

I suspect rather than reversing the referendum MPs would like to fully involved.

You don't think they would reverse the referendum result?

[dick dasterdly]

53 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And I suspect that they will do their level best to sabotage brexit without actually calling a vote to reverse it.

Actually this is a good point.

 

The various MPs know the vote of their constituents - so many will be in fear of the backlash if they make it obvious that they are going against their constituents wishes.

 

They need to get things back to parliament, and subtly pretend that they're in favour of Brexit - whilst pursing the course which they favour, as it benefits them personally.  As is happening at the moment....

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

And I suspect that they will do their level best to sabotage brexit without actually calling a vote to reverse it.

 

No, nonsense.

 

I think a majority of MPs wish to respect the view of the majority but also consider the views of the others. Leaving everything to the executive is, as we have already seen, very risky. ?

 

EFTA looks a sensible solution. Do me the courtesy of reading up on it before shooting it down. Thanks

Edited October 15, 2016 by Grouse

[dick dasterdly]

43 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

No, nonsense.

 

I think a majority of MPs wish to respect the view of the majority but also consider the views of the others. Leaving everything to the executive is, as we have already seen, very risky. ?

 

EFTA looks a sensible solution. Do me the courtesy of reading up on it before shooting it down. Thanks

So you think MPs would support the referendum leave vote if they are given the choice?

[chiang mai]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So you think MPs would support the referendum leave vote if they are given the choice?

 

Today, seriously unlikely.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So you think MPs would support the referendum leave vote if they are given the choice?

 

Yes I do.

 

I do think they would look for a solution that's optimal for the country as a whole though. EFTA may be a reasonable frame work. Free trade but not free movement of people. Can do deals with other countries. Still waiting to be shot down.

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

I'm not denigrating Gina Miller for excercising her right to bring this action: I'm denigrating her for her motivation in bringing it, and her lack of honesty (her 'my fellow petitioners were scared off' tale has already been exposed by the media).

Firstly the other claimants did not drop out, their case was heard after Lord Pannick presented the main argument.

Secondly can you back up the claim ' lack of honesty ', as I mentioned earlier her vote to remain is in the court transcript 

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

And I suspect that they will do their level best to sabotage brexit without actually calling a vote to reverse it.

With the vacuous statement ' Brexit means Brexit ', what is there to sabotage

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, chiang mai said:

 

Today, seriously unlikely.

Exactly, which is why they are looking for the courts to rule that the referendum should be ignored and only MPs get a vote on the subject.

Edited October 15, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

Yes I do.

 

I do think they would look for a solution that's optimal for the country as a whole though. EFTA may be a reasonable frame work. Free trade but not free movement of people. Can do deals with other countries. Still waiting to be shot down.

I'm not about to shoot you down.  The problem is that the EU government are not about to give up free movement of people easily.

 

In the same way that they are not about to give up their ridiculous salaries, pensions and ever increasing power easily.

[chiang mai]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Exactly, which is why they are looking for the courts to rule that the referendum should be ignore and only MPs get a vote on the subject.

 

And if all MP's did their job precisely, today, the answer would be, based on what is known today versus what was known when the circus was in town....?

Edited October 15, 2016 by chiang mai

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not about to shoot you down.  The problem is that the EU government are not about to give up free movement of people easily.

 

In the same way that they are not about to give up their ridiculous salaries, pensions and ever increasing power easily.

 

I agree. EFTA is not the EU. Have a read!

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Exactly, which is why they are looking for the courts to rule that the referendum should be ignored and only MPs get a vote on the subject.

The courts cannot rule the referendum to be ignored, it is your inference that the MPs will vote against. It seems ironic one of the arguments for Brexit was the EU primacy over UK law, but have no qualms regarding one person, the PM to remove laws at their whim. 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I agree. EFTA is not the EU. Have a read!

I believe that all all the countries that are EFTA members have to agree to the free movement of peoples. That's part of the deal. 

The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.

http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

[dick dasterdly]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The courts cannot rule the referendum to be ignored, it is your inference that the MPs will vote against. It seems ironic one of the arguments for Brexit was the EU primacy over UK law, but have no qualms regarding one person, the PM to remove laws at their whim. 

Do you think that if the courts rule that parliament has the final say - they will endorse the brexit vote?

[rockingrobin]

22 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Do you think that if the courts rule that parliament has the final say - they will endorse the brexit vote?

Personally I think the MPs will find it politically binding, a full debate will ensure that the government negotiations however constrained will go forward with the support of parliaament.  

[rockingrobin]

29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I believe that all all the countries that are EFTA members have to agree to the free movement of peoples. That's part of the deal. 

The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.

http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

EFTA have an emergency break clause, article 112,113.

If you go down EFTA route the EU regs apply and the EFTA court follows ECJ rulings.

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I believe that all all the countries that are EFTA members have to agree to the free movement of peoples. That's part of the deal. 

The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.

http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

 

We're back to Venn diagrams again. Don't confuse EFTA with EEA. Read it again when you get a chance. Some EFTA members signed up to EEA.

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

EFTA have an emergency break clause, article 112,113.

If you go down EFTA route the EU regs apply and the EFTA court follows ECJ rulings.

 

 

Please expand on that.

 

It doesn't agree with the articles I've read.....

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Firstly the other claimants did not drop out, their case was heard after Lord Pannick presented the main argument.

Secondly can you back up the claim ' lack of honesty ', as I mentioned earlier her vote to remain is in the court transcript 

 

Correct, Robin. It was purely a legal procedure to make Miller the sole claimant. This is her interpretation:

 

"I'm the only named client now but originally I wasn't the only one and the other people whose names were listed as clients received unbelievably vile abuse."

 

See the difference? See what she was trying to do there? It's blatant dishonesty.

[rockingrobin]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Correct, Robin. It was purely a legal procedure to make Miller the sole claimant. This is her interpretation:

 

"I'm the only named client now but originally I wasn't the only one and the other people whose names were listed as clients received unbelievably vile abuse."

 

See the difference? See what she was trying to do there? It's blatant dishonesty.

Gina Miller is not the sole claimant,she is the lead claimant. The other claimants, Dos Santos and first interveners were heard (but not concluded ) after the  lead claim  on first day

[chiang mai]

How dare you introduce facts and destroy a good story.