Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

[Dionigi]

If parliament votes against brexit then publish the names of all the ones who voted against it just before the next election so people know who is for them and who against. that should change a few seats in parliament.

[mommysboy]

I predicted this: its just simple rule of law and goes under the title statutory superiority. I'd say it is simple logic, and nothing more.  It doesn't effect the result of the referendum, Parliament is still morally obliged to follow the will of the people, and I would guess the only way it will block Brexit is if Parliament regards the plan unfeasible or damaging to the nation, constitutionally and/or financially.  Would you expect MP's to have anything other than the nation's interest at heart?  Personally, I not only expect it, I demand it.

 

I guess one big lesson the Remainers have had to learn is that we have to accept democracy, even if it produces results we can't tolerate.  You'd expect Brexiteers to show the same attitude regarding THE LAW.

Edited November 3, 2016 by mommysboy
typo errors

[Enoon]

23 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

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.

 

I refer you to my post of October 11:

 

Happily there is a good chance that it will not come to that as the matter, undoubtedly, will go before the courts.  All of them, up to the highest in the land.  They are unlikely to "rule away" Parliamentary Sovereignty.

 

As an aside it should be understood that pre-departure the European Court would continue to have authority over British courts as that is now part of British law and could overule any decision.  The European Court will continue to have authority until it is removed (Repealed) by Act of Parliament.  This has been pointed out by Ms May who has stated that European laws now integrated into British Law can/will be removed by Parliamentary Repeal (the only way they can be) after Britain leaves. 

 

Thus the European Court can overule any ruling by British Courts that such Dictatorial behaviour (edit:not consulting Parliament) is "in accordance with the Constitutional requirements" (edit:necessary for a nations invocation of article 50 to be acceptable.)

Edited November 3, 2016 by Enoon

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

I refer you to my post of October 11:

 

Happily there is a good chance that it will not come to that as the matter, undoubtedly, will go before the courts.  All of them, up to the highest in the land.  They are unlikely to "rule away" Parliamentary Sovereignty.

 

As an aside it should be understood that pre-departure the European Court would continue to have authority over British courts as that is now part of British law and could overule any decision.  The European Court will continue to have authority until it is removed (Repealed) by Act of Parliament.  This has been pointed out by Ms May who has stated that European laws now integrated into British Law can/will be removed by Parliamentary Repeal (the only way they can be) after Britain leaves. 

 

Thus the European Court can overule any ruling by British Courts that such Dictatorial behaviour (not consulting Parliament) is "in accordance with the Constitutional requirements" (necessary for a nations invocation of article 50 to be acceptable.)

 

Yes quite a few of us were on to this straight away.  personally, to me the logic was as clear as daylight.  I'm not saying I agree with one side or the other.  I'm just happy the judges did the right thing.  It restores some faith.

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

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.

 

Well whatever you think she is on puppet strings of her husband expose them so they ' P ' off from England.

[jpinx]

27 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

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.

 

This is exactly the reason that TM should have enacted Art 50 the day she took office.  Delay only allows this nonsense of political wrangling and lining of lawyers pockets while the country which voted to leave has to suffer the continuing uncertainties.  Does constitutional law over-ride the definition of democracy?  How many times has the UK government done something that "should" have been debated?

[daveAustin]

1 hour ago, Asiantravel said:

 

 Italy  referendum next month

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

 

There'll be one in England (again) as well if this doesn't come off! It went to court and is the law apparently, whatever, but all the meek remoaners are doing is screwing up progress and the future the country. We're going out. Accept it!  

Edited November 3, 2016 by daveAustin
edit

[Enoon]

42 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

you and now there's somebody else.

 

The responsibilty for which lies entirely with the Conservative Party infighting between Cameron, Johnson and Gove, and with their craving not to lose votes to the Monkey Farage.

 

I never thought I would live to see the nation more divided than when Thatcher came to power, but these c****s have actually done more harm.

 

She divided it, but they have shattered it. 

 

When the history is written it will all seem perfectly predictable, but for those who have to live through it it will seem like a chaotic, uncontrollable, nightmare.

 

 

 

[midas]

20 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I predicted this: its just simple rule of law and goes under the title statutory superiority. I'd say it is simple logic, and nothing more.  It doesn't effect the result of the referendum, Parliament is still morally obliged to follow the will of the people, and I would guess the only way it will block Brexit is if Parliament regards the plan unfeasible or damaging to the nation, constitutionally and/or financially.  Would you expect MP's to have anything other than the nation's interest at heart?  Personally, I not only expect it, I demand it.

 

I guess one big lesson the Remainers have had to learn is that we have to accept democracy, even if it produces results we can't tolerate.  You'd expect Brexiteers to show the same attitude regarding THE LAW.

 

 

"   Would you expect MP's to have anything other than the nation's interest at heart?  "

 

 

Are you having a joke or are you simply naive?

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

This is exactly the reason that TM should have enacted Art 50 the day she took office.  Delay only allows this nonsense of political wrangling and lining of lawyers pockets while the country which voted to leave has to suffer the continuing uncertainties.  Does constitutional law over-ride the definition of democracy?  How many times has the UK government done something that "should" have been debated?

 

In this instance constitutional law is supporting democracy.  It is not blocking Brexit, it is merely putting it in the hands of those empowered to pass laws.  To do this any other way would be unlawful.  Nobody doubts that the will of the people must be followed.

 

As an aside, the question has to be asked: What sort of Brexit did people vote for?  I don't know myself, but I'm sure it is not one that is unplanned, and chaotic!  In this instance then, Parliament will sort out the confusion. I rather got the impression it was implied that UK would remain part of the single market.  Is that right?

Edited November 3, 2016 by mommysboy
addendum

[happy Joe]

Poor united kingdom, flanked by a prime minister chosen by default and does not even know its own constitution.

 

As European I wish Brexit remains Brexit and the British (or rather English) predominantly nationalist, keep to themselves on their island. This will allow us finally to move towards building a strong federation, always ally but not the vassal of the US.

 

And so I hope that this legal episode is not a trick to reverse the vote.

[CharlieK]

12 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

I refer you to my post of October 11:

 

Happily there is a good chance that it will not come to that as the matter, undoubtedly, will go before the courts.  All of them, up to the highest in the land.  They are unlikely to "rule away" Parliamentary Sovereignty.

 

As an aside it should be understood that pre-departure the European Court would continue to have authority over British courts as that is now part of British law and could overule any decision.  The European Court will continue to have authority until it is removed (Repealed) by Act of Parliament.  This has been pointed out by Ms May who has stated that European laws now integrated into British Law can/will be removed by Parliamentary Repeal (the only way they can be) after Britain leaves. 

 

Thus the European Court can overule any ruling by British Courts that such Dictatorial behaviour is "in accordance with the Constitutional requirements".

 

IMO this is all about the law being seen to be carried out in the name of democracy. The supreme court will overturn the judgement! If anyone took this to the EU courts, I think there would be such anger from the UK public, so much so that it could work against the EU.

 

In fact it could force the enacting of article 50 sooner than March. Do you really think the UK public are going to roll over and accept  any EU court decision or being forced to stay in the EU? I don't think so. 

 

Anyone who thinks this isn't about what the public want is an idiot! 

 

 

 

 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, happy Joe said:

Poor united kingdom, flanked by a prime minister chosen by default and does not even know its own constitution.

 

As European I wish Brexit remains Brexit and the British (or rather English) predominantly nationalist, keep to themselves on their island. This will allow us finally to move towards building a strong federation, always ally but not the vassal of the US.

 

And so I hope that this legal episode is not a trick to reverse the vote.

 

Hopefully us Brits will be far away from the dysfunctial jokers of the EU by the time the proverbial sh{t hits the fan!

[Enoon]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

In this instance constitutional law is supporting democracy.  It is not blocking Brexit, it is merely putting it in the hands of those empowered to pass laws.  To do this any other way would be unlawful.  Nobody doubts that the will of the people must be followed.

 

HM QE2 also supporting democracy.  She will have already made it known that she would not be "amused" by being offered "Solomons Choice".  (The Royal Perogative bluff they tried to pull)

[soalbundy]

1 hour 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

 

I don't think the UK will self destruct, it will beg to be let into the EU before that happens.

[Enoon]

30 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

IMO this is all about the law being seen to be carried out in the name of democracy. The supreme court will overturn the judgement! If anyone took this to the EU courts, I think there would be such anger from the UK public, so much so that it could work against the EU.

 

In fact it could force the enacting of article 50 sooner than March. Do you really think the UK public are going to roll over and accept  any EU court decision or being forced to stay in the EU? I don't think so. 

 

Anyone who thinks this isn't about what the public want is an idiot! 

 

 

 

 

 

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”     Otto Von Bismarck

And sometimes the "public" are very useful.  As near as damn it the "public" are 50/50 so which bit of "public" is more powerful?  More importantly which bit has the most powerful friends?  What do you expect one side or the other to do?  Orgreave, Grosvenor Square, Poll Tax Riots?  All sorted.  What will the polls show after after a few months of price rises?  What they show then will matter more to the politicians than last years news.  Have you still not got it?

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Enoon

[mommysboy]

12 minutes ago, midas said:

 

 

"   Would you expect MP's to have anything other than the nation's interest at heart?  "

 

 

Are you having a joke or are you simply naive?

 

I do have a bit of a sense of humour.  Naive? No, I don't thinks so.  If you don't have some faith in the system, on crucial matters at least, then what's the point?

[Guest]

It's good to hear that Brexit just got cancelled. Well, maybe not yet, but who in the parliament would vote for something that crazy. 

Most of the people got their steam out already. They also learned that the brexit was sold by lies. They also learned that there never were a exit plan from the EU. 

 

I just hope the selfish idiots, who initiated the referendum as well as who lied about exiting EU will get real punishment from their actions. 

 

Sorry Putin, seems like you lost this round on your inforwars. 

[eliotness]

I think the best solution is to call for a general election asap and then see how many remoaning MPs hold onto their seats !

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Dionigi said:

If parliament votes against brexit then publish the names of all the ones who voted against it just before the next election so people know who is for them and who against. that should change a few seats in parliament.

 

No problem with that! You think a majority still want a hard brexit? I doubt it!

[dunroaming]

Lots of speculation as usual. Let's take a breath. 

 

First of all the MP's were not elected to do what their constituents directly tell them to.  They are elected to represent you based on you trusting their judgement.  Secondly it is true that any bill would then have to go through the Lords even if it is passed by the House of Commons. Third the pound immediately rose by nearly 2% on the news because it is felt that the May will have to soften her brexit approach.   Fourth is that the Supreme Court could overturn the ruling but it could then be appealed in the European Court.

 

It doesn't mean that Brexit will not go ahead but it does mean that the government must seek the approval of the people which must be a good thing

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

I predicted this: its just simple rule of law and goes under the title statutory superiority. I'd say it is simple logic, and nothing more.  It doesn't effect the result of the referendum, Parliament is still morally obliged to follow the will of the people, and I would guess the only way it will block Brexit is if Parliament regards the plan unfeasible or damaging to the nation, constitutionally and/or financially.  Would you expect MP's to have anything other than the nation's interest at heart?  Personally, I not only expect it, I demand it.

 

I guess one big lesson the Remainers have had to learn is that we have to accept democracy, even if it produces results we can't tolerate.  You'd expect Brexiteers to show the same attitude regarding THE LAW.

 

My expectation of MPs?

 

My tip for future President of the European Union:  Boris Johnson.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

I predicted this: its just simple rule of law and goes under the title statutory superiority. I'd say it is simple logic, and nothing more.  It doesn't effect the result of the referendum, Parliament is still morally obliged to follow the will of the people, and I would guess the only way it will block Brexit is if Parliament regards the plan unfeasible or damaging to the nation, constitutionally and/or financially.  Would you expect MP's to have anything other than the nation's interest at heart?  Personally, I not only expect it, I demand it.

 

I guess one big lesson the Remainers have had to learn is that we have to accept democracy, even if it produces results we can't tolerate.  You'd expect Brexiteers to show the same attitude regarding THE LAW.

 

It is a parliamentary democracy. Do you know what that means?

 

Parliament will now vote in the best interests of the country regardless of what the masses think 

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Lots of speculation as usual. Let's take a breath. 

 

First of all the MP's were not elected to do what their constituents directly tell them to.  They are elected to represent you based on you trusting their judgement.  Secondly it is true that any bill would then have to go through the Lords even if it is passed by the House of Commons. Third the pound immediately rose by nearly 2% on the news because it is felt that the May will have to soften her brexit approach.   Fourth is that the Supreme Court could overturn the ruling but it could then be appealed in the European Court.

 

It doesn't mean that Brexit will not go ahead but it does mean that the government must seek the approval of the people which must be a good thing

If the politicians were elected to do the right thing by their constituents, and the constituents also voted for Brexit - it begs the question of just <deleted> is actually going on -- apart from boosting lawyers bank accounts?

[CharlieK]

48 minutes ago, Enoon said:

And sometimes the "public" are very useful.   Have you still not got it?

 

I can see that the public have been played, I also see the public know they have been played. But then I also see many ways how brexit could play out. Surely the point is the cat has been let out the back, so who is going to be fool enough to try and put it back in the bag?

 

The damage is done either way, maybe the real question now is, can the EU actually get itself out of the mess it is in. Are we not abandoning the liferaft for the sinking ship? 

 

That should be "cat out of the bag"  

Edited November 3, 2016 by CharlieK

[lostinisaan]

What about a Gerxit? I'd be the first to vote for it. 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

It is a parliamentary democracy. Do you know what that means?

 

Parliament will now vote in the best interests of the country regardless of what the masses think 

 

Yes i do.  Parliament is morally if not legally obliged to follow the referendum result. If they don't I imagine there will be hell to pay. I am not taking sides: it's the way it is.

[CharlieK]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Parliament will now vote in the best interests of the country regardless of what the masses think

 

Which will be the death of british politics if they go against the wishes of the majority, or is that too much democracy?

[lostinisaan]

1 minute ago, CharlieK said:

 

I can see that the public have been played, I also see the public know they have been played. But then I also see many ways how brexit could play out. Surely the point is the cat has been let out the back, so who is going to be fool enough to try and put it back in the bag?

 

The damage is done either way, maybe the real question now is, can the EU actually get itself out of the mess it is in. Are we not abandoning the liferaft for the sinking ship?    

 

 

Is the cat in the back, or in a bag? Please clarify. 

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

If the politicians were elected to do the right thing by their constituents, and the constituents also voted for Brexit - it begs the question of just <deleted> is actually going on -- apart from boosting lawyers bank accounts?

 

You obviously don't understand parliamentary democracy. Read up on it