Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

[webfact]

Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

 

LONDON: -- The High Court is to rule on whether the government can begin the formal process of leaving the European Union without consulting Parliament.

 

Senior judges heard a challenge last month from campaigners who argue Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without MPs' approval.

 

The PM has promised to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37855207

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2016-11-03

[rockingrobin]

If the government lose they might not appeal. 

Would they want to get a ruling on  notification reversal, and if they lost at Supreme court it would not leave a lot of time for both houses to debate an article 50 Act

[jpinx]

This is just an attempt to subvert democracy.  The population have voted for an exit without known the terms and trusted the politicians to get it done. To create diversions of this nature merely demonstrates that there is big money and vested interests behind the remainers who have been continuing the mis-information campaign ever since the referendum.  The reality speaks for itself. Many countries have already expressed strong support and intent to do deals with independent UK.  Meanwhile Europe wallows around without making any sensible progress and the gloves are off between the Bundesbank and the EU central bank.  Guess who's going to win that one?   Meantime Axa continue to build in London and Nissan increase production in NE England.  UK have a very strong hand and TM is obviously no slouch.  UK could easily just pull up the bridge and accept some short-term chaos and pain because after 6 months or so people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

[Kwasaki]

Gina Miller as " nong38 " mentioned in a closed thread is leading this a battle for the moaning remainers who lost and can't move on IMO.

 

Someone who along with her husband whose made loads of dosh in investment management it's not really surprising is it, why don't she just P off back to where she was born and make trouble there.

[nontabury]

Is this the court case submitted by the Guyanan born Merchant Banker?

Edited November 3, 2016 by nontabury

[lungmi]

Brexit or Bregret: Trying to square the cirle.

The Pound will slip down 20 to 30%.

A resurrection is probable - wait 5 to 10 years.

[CharlieK]

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

Is this the court case submitted by the Guyanan born Merchant Banker?

And a hairdresser. lol

[bark]

The milk is already on the ground. Stop crying. Get on with it; and grow up.

I sure there are many other countries for you to play with. Russia, China, USA. They all like Fish and Chips.

[dunroaming]

Well the members of parliament were elected to represent the will of their constituents so I don't see the problem with giving them a voice in Brexit.  After all the majority voted to leave and I think they should therefore have a say in the form of divorce that is negotiated.  That voice would be via their MP in the House.

[natway09]

All this shit should have been addressed before the Referendum. Bit late now.

The people have spoken & whats more you asked them to speak.

Now get on with leaving & stop the procrastination.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

This is just an attempt to subvert democracy.  The population have voted for an exit without known the terms and trusted the politicians to get it done. To create diversions of this nature merely demonstrates that there is big money and vested interests behind the remainers who have been continuing the mis-information campaign ever since the referendum.  The reality speaks for itself. Many countries have already expressed strong support and intent to do deals with independent UK.  Meanwhile Europe wallows around without making any sensible progress and the gloves are off between the Bundesbank and the EU central bank.  Guess who's going to win that one?   Meantime Axa continue to build in London and Nissan increase production in NE England.  UK have a very strong hand and TM is obviously no slouch.  UK could easily just pull up the bridge and accept some short-term chaos and pain because after 6 months or so people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

No it's not. The UK is a representative democracy. Look up UK Constitutional Law to see what that means and why allowing the executive to try and circumvent parliamentary procedure by inappropriate use of the "Royal Prerogative" is not only a dangerous precedent in this case but also likely against the UK constitutional law.

Note that an act of parliament was required to invoke the referendum. That act did not confer the automatic right of implementation on the executive. The UK does not have a history of holding referendums and allowing the executive to implement the result without an act of parliament. The referendum sought to test public opinion and inform parliament accordingly. Hopefully the courts will support the law and not a government trying to protect it's own position and unity within its own political party rather than adhere to the correct procedure.

 

There were many plaintiffs in cases against the government. The courts decided which ones would be representative. Therefore the identity and background of each plaintiff is irrelevant. The tact is May is trying to use a prerogative inappropriately for the wrong reasons.

 

The correct course of action should be a parliamentary debate, followed by a vote. Should MP's not vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents they can be removed at the next election.

 

 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

5 minutes ago, bark said:

The milk is already on the ground. Stop crying. Get on with it; and grow up.

I sure there are many other countries for you to play with. Russia, China, USA. They all like Fish and Chips.

 

The milk is on the ground - carelessly spilled by politicians who are now trying to clean it up in a way that benefits themselves above all else. And in doing so may be trying to act in ways that are not in accordance with the law.

 

Grow up - like not commenting when you don't understand the facts you mean?

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Gina Miller as " nong38 " mentioned in a closed thread is leading this a battle for the moaning remainers who lost and can't move on IMO.

 

Someone who along with her husband whose made loads of dosh in investment management it's not really surprising is it, why don't she just P off back to where she was born and make trouble there.

 

Correction: Gina's husband made loads of dosh. She married into the dosh quite recently, and was put in charge of sales and marketing. She doesn't get involved with the investment side of things.

 

Gina's just the pretty-faced drama queen disguising the ugliness going on behind her in this case.

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

This is just an attempt to subvert democracy.  The population have voted for an exit without known the terms and trusted the politicians to get it done. To create diversions of this nature merely demonstrates that there is big money and vested interests behind the remainers who have been continuing the mis-information campaign ever since the referendum.  The reality speaks for itself. Many countries have already expressed strong support and intent to do deals with independent UK.  Meanwhile Europe wallows around without making any sensible progress and the gloves are off between the Bundesbank and the EU central bank.  Guess who's going to win that one?   Meantime Axa continue to build in London and Nissan increase production in NE England.  UK have a very strong hand and TM is obviously no slouch.  UK could easily just pull up the bridge and accept some short-term chaos and pain because after 6 months or so people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Subverting democracy is a world wide phenomena. More subtle in some places than others. The Italian election tomorrow should be interesting. 

[jesimps]

59 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No it's not. The UK is a representative democracy. Look up UK Constitutional Law to see what that means and why allowing the executive to try and circumvent parliamentary procedure by inappropriate use of the "Royal Prerogative" is not only a dangerous precedent in this case but also likely against the UK constitutional law.

Note that an act of parliament was required to invoke the referendum. That act did not confer the automatic right of implementation on the executive. The UK does not have a history of holding referendums and allowing the executive to implement the result without an act of parliament. The referendum sought to test public opinion and inform parliament accordingly. Hopefully the courts will support the law and not a government trying to protect it's own position and unity within its own political party rather than adhere to the correct procedure.

 

There were many plaintiffs in cases against the government. The courts decided which ones would be representative. Therefore the identity and background of each plaintiff is irrelevant. The tact is May is trying to use a prerogative inappropriately for the wrong reasons.

 

The correct course of action should be a parliamentary debate, followed by a vote. Should MP's not vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents they can be removed at the next election.

 

 

 

 

And meantime all this bumming about causes the money markets to lose even more confidence in the pound. 

Are you remainers going to accept the court's decision if it finds in favour of the govt or try for another loophole to discredit brexit?

Anyway, you're not the one I'd pick to champion democracy after reading your comments on the local political situation over the last few years. 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by jesimps

[dunroaming]

Trying to get Brexit right is going to be massively difficult and could well take far longer than two years before any negotiated deals are agreed.  The markets will be volatile and the pound will keep wavering.  To keep saying "just get on with it" shows a complete naivety of just how sensitive this whole situation is.

 

Anyway it has now been decided that there has to be a vote in Parliament before the UK leaves.  The government can appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court and even the EU High Court in Strasburg (that would be interesting!).

 

So an early trigger could be in jeopardy depending on when and how the vote is taken.

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No it's not. The UK is a representative democracy. Look up UK Constitutional Law to see what that means and why allowing the executive to try and circumvent parliamentary procedure by inappropriate use of the "Royal Prerogative" is not only a dangerous precedent in this case but also likely against the UK constitutional law.

Note that an act of parliament was required to invoke the referendum. That act did not confer the automatic right of implementation on the executive. The UK does not have a history of holding referendums and allowing the executive to implement the result without an act of parliament. The referendum sought to test public opinion and inform parliament accordingly. Hopefully the courts will support the law and not a government trying to protect it's own position and unity within its own political party rather than adhere to the correct procedure.

 

There were many plaintiffs in cases against the government. The courts decided which ones would be representative. Therefore the identity and background of each plaintiff is irrelevant. The tact is May is trying to use a prerogative inappropriately for the wrong reasons.

 

The correct course of action should be a parliamentary debate, followed by a vote. Should MP's not vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents they can be removed at the next election.

 

 

 

 

Maybe if they had the Parliamentary Debate before the referendum, and they decided that if the public decided to leave the EU, how would we vote. If they then decided that if the public decided to leave, we would not honour their decision, so what is the point of the referendum in the first place? Totally pointless and a kick in the teeth for democracy.

[soalbundy]

The remainer's just won the court case and the gov doesn't like it 55555

[Grouse]

Just Rejoice!

[stag4]

What a disgraceful decision. Democracy has been frustrated by the remoaners!

[ScotBkk]

Just Rejoice!

Just bought a huge gaff in Scotland and discounted by a fortune.

Love Brexit !!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, stag4 said:

What a disgraceful decision. Democracy has been frustrated by the remoaners!

 

You wanted control returned to our parliament didn't you?

[Grouse]

What was that awful expression the Brexiteer's use?

 

Oh yes; "SUCK IT UP"

[stag4]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

You wanted control returned to our parliament didn't you?

Political decision to delay Brexit. Don't get too exited, Britain still leaving the failed EU  experiment that's if it does not self destruct before

 

[brewsterbudgen]

The long march to Brexit has been made even longer and while still likely, the chance of it being permanently delayed has increased. Thank God for judges and parliament!

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Asiantravel]

10 minutes ago, stag4 said:

Political decision to delay Brexit. Don't get too exited, Britain still leaving the failed EU  experiment that's if it does not self destruct before

 

 

 Italy  referendum next month

plus an increasing number of people predicting civil war in France within the next four months

Edited November 3, 2016 by Asiantravel

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Asiantravel said:

 

 Italy  referendum next month

plus an increasing number of people predicting civil war in France within the next four months

you and now there's somebody else.

[Asiantravel]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

you and now there's somebody else.

 

Quote

 

"We are on the verge of a civil war." That quote did not come from a fanatic or a lunatic. No, it came from head of France's homeland security, the DGSI (Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure), Patrick Calvar. He has, in fact, spoken of the risk of a civil war many times

 

 

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8489/france-the-coming-civil-war

Edited November 3, 2016 by Asiantravel

[Xircal]

3 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Well the members of parliament were elected to represent the will of their constituents so I don't see the problem with giving them a voice in Brexit.  After all the majority voted to leave and I think they should therefore have a say in the form of divorce that is negotiated.  That voice would be via their MP in the House.

 

According to the BBC, legislation would require a vote in both the House of Commons as well as in the Lords. But the Lords has a majority of MPs who voted to remain in the EU. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785

 

Also in the video report Norman Smith said that even if the government appealed to the Supreme Court a further appeal to the European Court of Justice could be made which further muddies the waters a bit.

[Enoon]

To do otherwise would have a been a step on the road to Tyranny.

 

The judiciary know that perfectly well even if the clueless of ThaiVisa do not.

 

They will not rule away over 300 years of Parliamentary Sovereignty to replace it with Dictatorship backed by "the mob". 

 

The tyrants would present the mob with the options that they wanted to offer, when they chose, as it suited them.  Sound familiar?

 

Anybody who thinks that this was ever, in any way, about "the people", is an idiot.