Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

[mommysboy]

18 minutes 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

 

Should be mandatory reading before anyone is allowed to post.  Great posting.

Edited November 3, 2016 by mommysboy
typo error

[CharlieK]

Just now, lostinisaan said:

 

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

hahaha indeed in the bag. lol

[dunroaming]

4 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?

 

When you vote for your local MP in an election it is because you trust their judgement to do the best for you.  If that is going all out for Brexit then that is what they will do.  Can't see why the Brexiters would be worried if the majority want out.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

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.

 

I beg to differ

 

I think parliament has absolute sovereignty

 

AND if you ran the referendum today the result would be different

 

Do you want democracy or not????

 

 

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

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

democracy does not come in flavours - the people spoke at the referendum and it should be enacted by the government.

[lostinisaan]

4 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

hahaha indeed in the bag. lol

 

 If it's a Thai cat with a white BMW, please leave her there. 

[White Christmas13]

6 hours ago, CharlieK said:

And a hairdresser. lol

Whats wrong with that? Pauline Hanson ran a Fish and Chip shop 

now she is a senator 

[CharlieK]

A question!

 

Do you believe that the majority of UK politicians are career politicians? if the answer is yes, why would they vote against their own constituents, and face being voted out of parliament in the next elections, how does that further their career?

 

They are going to vote the way that keeps them in parliament, voting against brexit is the end of their career. IMO

 

I'd go so far as to say this isn't really about if there is a brexit or not. This is more about what sort of brexit it will be. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by CharlieK

[dunroaming]

1 minute ago, CharlieK said:

A question!

 

Do you believe that the majority of UK politicians are career politicians? if the answer is yes, why would they vote against their own constituents, and face being voted out of parliament in the next elections, how does that further their career?

 

They are going to vote the way that keeps them in parliament, voting against brexit is the end of their career. IMO

 

Good point.  Of course when Brexit goes through and it is an unmitigated disaster then all the MP's will be up the creek without a paddle.

 

Seriously though what are the Brexiteers worried about? If (and I am not advocating this)there was a second referendum are they so sure that they would lose?  Given what everyone knows what they know now I would say that is likely but you guys still think the majority want to leave.

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

A question!

 

Do you believe that the majority of UK politicians are career politicians? if the answer is yes, why would they vote against their own constituents, and face being voted out of parliament in the next elections, how does that further their career?

 

They are going to vote the way that keeps them in parliament, voting against brexit is the end of their career. IMO

 

It appears that the reality is more confused, since the majority of elected MP's in government actually were remainers, but their constituents voted to leave.  This demonstrates the disconnect between the population's majority, the sitting MP's, the Government, and Parliament.  Democracy relies on the representatives actually knowing what the majority of his constituents want, and voting in the house for that stance.  Unfortunatley UK has a ghastly "party political system" and such free-voting is rare....

[Enoon]

4 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 

 

Looking at these pages it seems that very few people have the slightest conception of how Representative Parliamentary Democracy, as practised under The British Constitution, actually works. 

 

Most significantly, in this case, that there is no provision or legal obligation to "honour" the results of the Referendum.

 

It was nothing more than an opinion poll and has no more legal strength than one organised by "The Sun" newspaper.

 

They were duped, deluded, misled, misinformed into thinking otherwise. 

 

I have spent the last 6 months attempting to make this understood to people in England who, unlike me, did not have 1hour a week "British Constitution" when they were at Secondary School.

 

I have been alternately faced with bombastic ignorance proclaiming that everything was going to turn out the way that was "promised", and slow dawning realisation that it all meant nothing.

 

It all meant nothing because it was nothing more than supporters being whipped up before the "match" actually started.  The match actually started last week, and the first goal was scored today.

 

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

16 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?

 

What's 'going on' is right and proper procedure established over centuries, and enacted in courts up and down the UK daily, upholding law.

 

Yes undoubtedly, if they vote to block Brexit, then ask that question.  Where you're wrong is assuming they will 'carte blanche' reject Brexit.

 

But what Brexit are we talking about?  IMO, it was clear that we would remain part of the single market.  I may be wrong, but assuming I'm not, then they may be quite within their rights to insist on soft Brexit, or nothing at all.  The metaphor that always sprung to mind is 'pound of flesh': not a drop more or less.

 

Do you or anybody think people voted for a hard Brexit?  I would be interested to know what people honestly think.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

What's 'going on' is right and proper procedure established over centuries, and enacted in courts up and down the UK daily, upholding law.

 

Yes undoubtedly, if they vote to block Brexit, then ask that question.  Where you're wrong is assuming they will 'carte blanche' reject Brexit.

 

But what Brexit are we talking about?  IMO, it was clear that we would remain part of the single market.  I may be wrong, but assuming I'm not, then they may be quite within their rights to insist on soft Brexit, or nothing at all.  The metaphor that always sprung to mind is 'pound of flesh': not a drop more or less.

 

Do you or anybody think people voted for a hard Brexit?  I would be interested to know what people honestly think.

 

Many people have been saying that TM should have enacted Art50 the day she took office and we tolerate the 6 months chaotic hard exit, but look at the deals on offer around the world now, all depending on Brexit coming to pass.

[CharlieK]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

It appears that the reality is more confused, since the majority of elected MP's in government actually were remainers, but their constituents voted to leave.  This demonstrates the disconnect between the population's majority, the sitting MP's, the Government, and Parliament.  Democracy relies on the representatives actually knowing what the majority of his constituents want, and voting in the house for that stance.  Unfortunatley UK has a ghastly "party political system" and such free-voting is rare....

 

If it came down to career or party politics I think the majority would choose career. Politicians have no problem crossing over to the other side when they feel that career is in jeopardy. It's only party politics when it suites them! But I agree there should be more free votes on issues, not along party lines.

[Enoon]

23 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

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

 

Are you predicting a majority when Parliament actually votes?

 

When will that be? 3,6,9 months?  1 year? 2 years?

 

"A week is a long time in politics"   Harold Wilson

[nontabury]

I predicted something on these  lines a couple of months ago,based on how the result of the democratic referendums on EU issues in the Netherlands,France and the Irish republic were just simple swept aside by the ruling class. All in all it's a sad day for democracy,but that's the problem when we have many traitors in our own country. 

  So what for the future, I think the establishment will try to do as much damage to the UK economy as possibly,hoping this will sway more M.P.s to vote against the will of the people,this in turn will result in a general election, now that will be interesting.

[CharlieK]

2 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

Are you predicting a majority when Parliament actually votes?

 

When will that be? 3,6,9 months?  1 year? 2 years?

 

"A week is a long time in politics"   Harold Wilson

 

well surely it would have to be a majority to pass whichever way the vote went!

[Enoon]

43 minutes 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

 

The only time that any politician seeks the "approval" of the public is on the day of a General Election.  

 

The only people that need to approve a proposed governmental policy, or it's dismissal, are those same politicians, sitting in the House of Commons.  That is what todays ruling has confirmed, and future rulings will confirm.

 

Because that is what the British Constitution demands.  It's the Law.

 

One day of Direct Democracy for the "people".  The rest of the time it's "up to them".

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Enoon

[dunroaming]

I think David Attenborough made a good point.  Brexit is far too complicated to be decided by a single "yes" or "No" vote.  People who voted leave probably had very different ideas of what it would involve.  Considering the amount of lies told (by both sides) it is easy to see how so many were hoodwinked into voting for something other than what they thought.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing and maybe there is still time to review the situation.

[Enoon]

48 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

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

 

You're assuming that at the time that Parliament votes a majority of the public will want out.

 

What the polls say then are what will count. 

 

June 2016 will be history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jpinx]

19 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

The only time that any politician seeks the "approval" of the public is on the day of a General Election.  

 

The only people that need to approve a proposed governmental policy, or it's dismissal, are those same politicians, sitting in the House of Commons.  That is what todays ruling has confirmed, and future rulings will confirm.

 

Because that is what the British Constitution demands.  It's the Law.

 

One day of Direct Democracy for the "people".  The rest of the time it's "up to them".

 

....  and therein lies the problem.  Democracy does not need a law or set of rules to exist -- it exists as a result of actions.  The current actions clearly show that democracy is dead in UK.  

 

To validate anti-democratic actions by quoting laws, rules and constitutions merely shows how polluted that democracy has become.  It's a short step now to single party democracy.  Look at USA where they can only have 2 options for president because of the "rules", when it is patently obvious that neither is suitable nor wanted by the vast majority of US citizen.  The same pollution has allowed the UK political parties to place their people in constituencies to supposedly represent people they have little or no connection with.  The EU is no shining example of democracy -- who voted Donald Tusk into "office" ?

[Grouse]

40 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

It appears that the reality is more confused, since the majority of elected MP's in government actually were remainers, but their constituents voted to leave.  This demonstrates the disconnect between the population's majority, the sitting MP's, the Government, and Parliament.  Democracy relies on the representatives actually knowing what the majority of his constituents want, and voting in the house for that stance.  Unfortunatley UK has a ghastly "party political system" and such free-voting is rare....

 

Wrong. D- 

 

see me

[elliss]

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

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!


 

 

   Spot  on . 

   There  will never, ever  be  Brexit ,  i told you that from the very start .

      Madam  Maybe is a game player, so expect gbp to recover .

   The people have spoken , my  ars..

 

[Enoon]

29 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

well surely it would have to be a majority to pass whichever way the vote went!

 

If we were talking about the repeal of the European Community Act 1974, the vote to repeal it would have to match the vote that originally passed it.  So the majority to repeal could not be less than the majority that originally passed it.  A simple majority would not be enough.

 

Anybody who knows better, please correct me on the proportions/procedure.

 

The truth is that we are sailing into a Constitutional Crisis (as predicted by Michael Heseltine) and the future has become extremely "dynamic".

 

Everybody wants to think that it will turn out for the best (according to their own criteria) but the certainty that everyone craves is what Priests and Politicians offer.

 

History isn't like that.  

 

Did you ever want to live through a great historical event?

 

Well now you are.

 

Scary isn't it?

 

(If you are in Thailand you may get to live through another one)

 

 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Dunroaming suggests that British M.P.s represent their constituents and therefore vote on issues accordingly but in many cases nothing could be further from the reality.  On many important issues in the past, (capital punishment for example), most M.P.s vote "according to their conscience", which is normally political-speak for voting for whatever is best for them, or in compliance with a three-line whip, while ignoring the wishes of the electorate.   Saying that the M.P.s concerned can be voted out at the next election is true but perhaps just a little too late.

[elliss]

1 minute ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Dunroaming suggests that British M.P.s represent their constituents and therefore vote on issues accordingly ,

 

  M.P.s  represent  their  own  interests , financial of course .

       Nothing new ,  under the Sun .

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Dunroaming suggests that British M.P.s represent their constituents and therefore vote on issues accordingly but in many cases nothing could be further from the reality.  On many important issues in the past, (capital punishment for example), most M.P.s vote "according to their conscience", which is normally political-speak for voting for whatever is best for them, or in compliance with a three-line whip, while ignoring the wishes of the electorate.   Saying that the M.P.s concerned can be voted out at the next election is true but perhaps just a little too late.

 

MP's represent their constituents in the way they feel fit. You elect the candidate because you believe they are the best person to interpret your views.  If fact you are saying that you will agree with their views.  That is the way the system works or in reality doesn't work.  

[mcfish]

Chaos all those that recently exchanged their sterling to baht.. And now it's shot up again.. What to do buy it back only to have it drop back again on successful appeal? What a nightmare!

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

[In the jungle]

When they started wittering on about ancient powers of the monarch they were screwed.

[Grouse]

Well, I'm off to bed smiling ?

 

Great news today!