Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

[Enoon]

33 minutes ago, jpinx said:

....  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" ?

 

So what?

 

Things are as they are.

 

Everyone wants to know who to bet on, not how the world could be perfect if only it lived the way you want it to.

 

What time is the next bus?

[CharlieK]

26 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

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)

 

 

 

Not scary at all. Historical fiasco more like! I think you mean other events may come to pass? Which are far more scary for the world if it happens! Maybe it's a question of whether one happens before the other?

[hawker9000]

15 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.

"This is just an attempt to subvert democracy. "

 

Yeap.  You can always find a self-important jurist ready, willing & able to do just that.  Appointed judges are merely the tools of career politicians exercising purely political agendas.   'Same in the States, as the wingnuts, who're now counting the days until and drooling over the prospect of another anti-Constitutionalist Justice appointment, discovered long ago.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Basically the mantra of the Brexit campaign was "Taking back control of our own affairs by making Britain's parliament sovereign". The judicial ruling does precisely that - it sets out that Britain's parliament is sovereign in determining the trigger for Article 50.

[stevenl]

 
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....

No, MP's are supposed to vote for what's good for the country, which can be different from what the constituents want.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[nontabury]

4 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Basically the mantra of the Brexit campaign was "Taking back control of our own affairs by making Britain's parliament sovereign". The judicial ruling does precisely that - it sets out that Britain's parliament is sovereign in determining the trigger for Article 50.

 

When parliament approved the Referendum bill, they did so in the knowledge that the people's decisions would be implimented. Now that decisions has been overturned,exactly the same as when the democratic vote by the people of the Netherlands,France and the Republic of Ireland were also disregarded,as it din't fit in with the wishes of the arrogant political class. Now the best hope for the UK's freedom from this corrupt organisation will come when a general election is called.

 

 

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No, MP's are supposed to vote for what's good for the country, which can be different from what the constituents want.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

  Arrogance again. Maybe the electorate voted for what they considered the best for their country, and therefore the M.P's should hold to the democratic wishes of their 

constituency.When a general election is called,and the sooner the better. Then you will see how many of the prospective parliamentarians will vote to remain in this European dictatorship.

  

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

  Arrogance again. Maybe the electorate voted for what they considered the best for their country, and therefore the M.P's should hold to the democratic wishes of their 

constituency.When a general election is called,and the sooner the better. Then you will see how many of the prospective parliamentarians will vote to remain in this European dictatorship.

  

The court ruling was not about democracy or the referendum result , at no point has the court instructed parliament how to judge the result of the referendum.

The case was about rule of law , who has the power to create, amend or repeal laws, Crown or Parliament . Government policy written  on a pamphlet is not law.

Its ironic that the European Parliament will be fully involved in the negotiations and yet the UK government wish to sideline UK parliament.

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by rockingrobin

[jpinx]

11 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

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.

Your point is well made.  Politicians in the party system in UK have put themselves up for selection by whichever party they think is most likely to select them, and then they will "represent" that party's interests in whatever constituency the Party places them.  It's not dis-similar to how US ends up with presidential candidates who are selected - not elected.  In UK there have been enough politicians jumping ship for anyone to realise that their jump is just a career move.  They had reached their ceiling where they had been and were made a better offer elsewhere.  Politicians are no more loyal to their party or constituents than they are paid to be.  It's a job!

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

The court ruling was not about democracy or the referendum result , at no point has the court instructed parliament how to judge the result of the referendum.

The case was about rule of law , who has the power too create, amend or repeal laws, Crown or Parliament . Government policy written  on a pamphlet is not law.

Its ironic that the European Parliament will be fully involved in the negotiations and yet the UK government wish to sideline UK parliament.

 

Technically this is possibly true in the legal sense, in which case the problem lies with the original agreement by parliament to hold a referendum without making the result binding on government, but that is water under the bridge at this stage, though it does beg the question "Why was the referendum held if they were never going to pay attention to the result?".   The fact that a referendum was held is a clear indication of sufficient opposition to EU membership amongst the sitting members and parliament wanted a new mandate to forge on down the existing route.  Having been given the thumbs-down, they are now searching for technical ways to avoid acting democratically.

 

The discussion is now about how Parliament *and* Government need to rise above the technicalities and actually do what was voted for.  There's enough legal brains earning big bucks on these appeals -- they'd be better employed in finding a way out of this technical cul-de-sac.

[brewsterbudgen]

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.

Their names will be well known. If there's an election it will be a key part of every prospective MP's manifesto. It's called representative democracy.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[brewsterbudgen]

The irony of Brexit possibly being decided by the European Courts is delightful! [emoji4]

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[nontabury]

26 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The court ruling was not about democracy or the referendum result , at no point has the court instructed parliament how to judge the result of the referendum.

The case was about rule of law , who has the power to create, amend or repeal laws, Crown or Parliament . Government policy written  on a pamphlet is not law.

Its ironic that the European Parliament will be fully involved in the negotiations and yet the UK government wish to sideline UK parliament.

 

 

 

I agree with you 100%.   " The court ruling was not about democracy"

 

What do you think the courts ruling would have been, if the Democratic wish of the referendum had resulted in a vote to remain, and then some foreign Banker had appealed to the courts to have the vote overturned?

 

[Grouse]

I'll bet that as the ramifications of leaving the EU sink in, there will no longer be a majority of the electorate wanting Brexit. Will you still want MPs to reflect that when the article 50 decision comes up? Or do you want them to decide what is best for the country?

[Enoon]

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

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

 

It comes in at least 2 flavours.

 

One is Direct Democracy, the nearest to which I know of is practised in Switzerland during their frequent referendums.

Then the votes of all the population create a collective, binding decision on legislative matters.

 

Another is Representative Democracy, which is practised in the UK and the US (along with many other countries) in which the population choose representatives to decide on legislative matters. 

 

Unless specific provision is made for the results of a UK vote to pass into law (as was the case in the 2011 Alternate Vote referendum, but not with this one) a referendum vote in the UK has no validity or legal power.   It is just a "Big Opinion Poll".

 

PS. If the UK population had chosen to agree to the electoral changes proposed in the 2011 referendum, it is quite likely that UKIP (and other new/small parties) would have, by now, a significant presence in Parliament.  But the Great British Public (although I suspect, as in this case, mostly the English) in their wisdom, chose to reject the proposals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Enoon

[Grouse]

What's happened to our regular Brexiteer interlocutors? I hope they're OK ?

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

 

I agree with you 100%.   " The court ruling was not about democracy"

 

What do you think the courts ruling would have been, if the Democratic wish of the referendum had resulted in a vote to remain, and then some foreign Banker had appealed to the courts to have the vote overturned?

 

But you are missing the point, nothing is being overturned.

  

[jpinx]

27 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What's happened to our regular Brexiteer interlocutors? I hope they're OK ?

That is the common mistake -- this is not about Brexit - it is about who's allowed to do what in a democracy.

[kevkev1888]

 

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I'll bet that as the ramifications of leaving the EU sink in, there will no longer be a majority of the electorate wanting Brexit. Will you still want MPs to reflect that when the article 50 decision comes up? Or do you want them to decide what is best for the country?

 

The vote is over. Its done. Just accept it. 

 

This is NOT going to stop Brexit happening.

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, jpinx said:

That is the common mistake -- this is not about Brexit - it is about who's allowed to do what in a democracy.

 

Well you are correct of course but somewhat pedantic. The decision has a massive effect on Brexit. All bets are off now!

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

 

 

The vote is over. Its done. Just accept it. 

 

This is NOT going to stop Brexit happening.

 

Don't bet on it ?

 

Are you worried that the referendum result was a fluke? That if it was re-run, there would be a different result? Think about it...

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Don't bet on it ?

 

Are you worried that the referendum result was a fluke? That if it was re-run, there would be a different result? Think about it...

Lets have a best out of 3 then! No lets make it  best of 5. What a ridiculous statement of a re-run. With people clued into the Bias BBC and SKY news and also that the end of the world didn't happen after brexit, in fact the opposite, I would predict the outcome would be even higher in favour of leave. But we have had the referendum so it is pointless talking about such idiocy.

[Humberstone]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Don't bet on it ?

 

Are you worried that the referendum result was a fluke? That if it was re-run, there would be a different result? Think about it...

 

I'm a remainer, but this isn't about the referendum result. The court ruling doesn't change Brexit, - it'll happen anyway. 

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Lets have a best out of 3 then! No lets make it  best of 5. What a ridiculous statement of a re-run. With people clued into the Bias BBC and SKY news and also that the end of the world didn't happen after brexit, in fact the opposite, I would predict the outcome would be even higher in favour of leave. But we have had the referendum so it is pointless talking about such idiocy.

 

Why? People are a little wiser about the implications. There will not be a rerun but I'll bet there is no longer a majority for Brexit. The referendum was a snap shot; frozen in time. Conditions change ?

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, Humberstone said:

 

I'm a remainer, but this isn't about the referendum result. The court ruling doesn't change Brexit, - it'll happen anyway. 

 

I agree, but the TYPE of Brexit will be more sensible.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Lets have a best out of 3 then! No lets make it  best of 5. What a ridiculous statement of a re-run. With people clued into the Bias BBC and SKY news and also that the end of the world didn't happen after brexit, in fact the opposite, I would predict the outcome would be even higher in favour of leave. But we have had the referendum so it is pointless talking about such idiocy.

Nigel Farage disagrees.

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

[CharlieK]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Don't bet on it ?

 

Are you worried that the referendum result was a fluke? That if it was re-run, there would be a different result? Think about it...

 

The point is there will not be another referendum, you just have to accept that the vote is for brexit. Now it is up to the politicians to deliver. Amazing how some never leave a sinking ship.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, CharlieK said:

 

The point is there will not be another referendum, you just have to accept that the vote is for brexit. Now it is up to the politicians to deliver. Amazing how some never leave a sinking ship.

And how others want to sink a floating one.

[jpinx]

24 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Well you are correct of course but somewhat pedantic. The decision has a massive effect on Brexit. All bets are off now!

The people who didn't like the referendum result and went to litigation are the pedants in this little pantomime.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, CharlieK said:

 

The point is there will not be another referendum, you just have to accept that the vote is for brexit. Now it is up to the politicians to deliver. Amazing how some never leave a sinking ship.

 

Do you not care what kind of Brexit? Surely you don't want a hard Brexit? If so, no point having a dialogue. 

 

Anyway, parliamentary sovereignty is restored and anything is possible ?