Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

 

Its a euphemism 

 

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/by_George

 

Yorkshiremen would say "by 'eck"

Sorry - - I forgot to add a smiley -- I was joking.

 

BTW -- George is a euphemism for autopilot too -- kinda appropriate

[thaihome]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

This isn't 'feelings'. It was a national referendum which instructed the sitting government to take us out of the EU. And, as PM May has stated in today's Telegraph, the government is going to act on the instructions of the people.

 

As far as I'm concerned, any MPs who think they know better should resign their seat and stand as an indy in the resulting by election, with remain high on their policy list. We'll then find out how much their constituents want them as their representative.

What if the MP's  constituents  voted overwhelming to remain? I believe there were many that did. Is he doing his job correctly if he goes against their expressed wishes?

TH 

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

Define "best interests"   --  if you dare

Would depend on the subject and on top of that the perspective.

[jpinx]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Would depend on the subject and on top of that the perspective.

 

The subject is brexit-high-court-judges-to-give-legal-verdict and the perspective is from the viewpoint of the ordinary voter.  Does that help?

[Grouse]

37 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Sorry - - I forgot to add a smiley -- I was joking.

 

BTW -- George is a euphemism for autopilot too -- kinda appropriate

 

Ha! Way off topic but when I was with ICL, the operating system was George! (24 bit words, imagine that!)

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, thaihome said:

What if the MP's  constituents  voted overwhelming to remain? I believe there were many that did. Is he doing his job correctly if he goes against their expressed wishes?

TH 

 

No, he's doing his job correctly.

[rockingrobin]

22 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

The subject is brexit-high-court-judges-to-give-legal-verdict and the perspective is from the viewpoint of the ordinary voter.  Does that help?

The High Court verdict was about law not politics.

With regards MPs and their constituents, how are they supposed to know.The vote was to leave the EU, but what are the voters requirements, EFTA, Single market, customs union, WTO, the variables are numerous what will be the consequences with regards other voters and non voters, the vulnerable and minority groups whose voices will  be drowned out by lobbyists and the most vocal and lobbyist.

We have already seen one leave MP resign , evidently wanting to remain in single market.   

[stevenl]

 
No, he's doing his job correctly.

I agree with this, but it contradicts your earlier opinions.

Why is he doing his job correctly in your opinion?

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[elliss]

On 11/5/2016 at 7:00 AM, stevenl said:

 

 

  MP,s must approve permission for a  democratically elected Goverment ,

  to implement article  50 .

 

   Then  brexit exit terms and conditions , must be approved  by all 

  EU member  countries...

 

Then the   terms and conditions  agreed , must go to UK  Parliment 

   for a vote of approval ..    Brexit ?    NO  way .

Edited November 6, 2016 by elliss

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, elliss said:

 

  MP,s must approve permission for a  democratically elected Goverment ,

  to implement article  50 .

 

   Then  brexit exit terms and conditions , must be approve by all 

  EU member  countries...

 

Then the   terms and conditions  agreed , must go to UK  Parliment 

   for a vote of approval ..    Brexit ?    NO  way .

Once Parliament votes to implement article 50 whether by itself or by the PM, once it is invoked then the Brexit process is irrevocably under way and in 2 years the UK will be out. Unless the EU and the UK agree to extend the negotiations. So, no, the terms and conditions don't have to be approved by all nor do they have to be approved by Parliament. If no deal is negotiated in   2 years and no extension is granted by the EU, should the UK want one, then the UK is out. It's over.

[elliss]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once Parliament votes to implement article 50 whether by itself or by the PM, once it is invoked then the Brexit process is irrevocably under way and in 2 years the UK will be out. Unless the EU and the UK agree to extend the negotiations. So, no, the terms and conditions don't have to be approved by all nor do they have to be approved by Parliament. If no deal is negotiated in   2 years and no extension is granted by the EU, should the UK want one, then the UK is out. It's over.

 

 Unless ? .  thanks for your valued  comments .

[jpinx]

 

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once Parliament votes to implement article 50 whether by itself or by the PM, once it is invoked then the Brexit process is irrevocably under way and in 2 years the UK will be out. Unless the EU and the UK agree to extend the negotiations. So, no, the terms and conditions don't have to be approved by all nor do they have to be approved by Parliament. If no deal is negotiated in   2 years and no extension is granted by the EU, should the UK want one, then the UK is out. It's over.

That is why a short motion to invoke Article 50 is important to get through parliament quickly.  There's no need to discuss terms yet - just get the clock ticking on the process.

[brewsterbudgen]

 
That is why a short motion to invoke Article 50 is important to get through parliament quickly.  There's no need to discuss terms yet - just get the clock ticking on the process.

And put the entire UK economy at risk? I sincerely believe MPs, and even T May, are not that foolish.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[jpinx]

 

Just now, brewsterbudgen said:

And put the entire UK economy at risk? I sincerely believe MPs, and even T May, are not that foolish.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

What risk ?  Brexit will happen, that is not up for debate, and any knock-on effects, both good and bad, will not be changed by invoking Art 50

[rockingrobin]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once Parliament votes to implement article 50 whether by itself or by the PM, once it is invoked then the Brexit process is irrevocably under way and in 2 years the UK will be out. Unless the EU and the UK agree to extend the negotiations. So, no, the terms and conditions don't have to be approved by all nor do they have to be approved by Parliament. If no deal is negotiated in   2 years and no extension is granted by the EU, should the UK want one, then the UK is out. It's over.

 

10 hours ago, elliss said:

 

 Unless ? .  thanks for your valued  comments .

The issue of the Art 50 being irrevocable once triggered is contestable. Note the government response after the HC verdict, it is government policy not to  revoke.

Under international law the right to change your mind exists

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

That is why a short motion to invoke Article 50 is important to get through parliament quickly.  There's no need to discuss terms yet - just get the clock ticking on the process.

What to do if parliament reject the deal negotiated by the government after the 2 year timeframe

[jpinx]

They have been through this proceedure before - basically whip their MPs into it    More seriously -- if it reaches a total stalemate the choices left for MP's are simple - vote for the deal as negotiated, or wait for the 2 years to expire and accept a no deal exit.  Actually the PM has the upper hand once Article 50 is invoked

[Laughing Gravy]

18 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Trouble is that the people voted with their 'feelings' not objectively, immigration,immigration,immigration.

Totally rubbish statement I have to say. I have said it before myself and all my friends who voted leave and there is quite a lot had immigration down at the bottom of our list of reasons, to get out of the EU. My vote was very object. Sovereignty back, out of the corrupt, unelected Brussels EU commission. That is objective as you can get.

[soalbundy]

7 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Totally rubbish statement I have to say. I have said it before myself and all my friends who voted leave and there is quite a lot had immigration down at the bottom of our list of reasons, to get out of the EU. My vote was very object. Sovereignty back, out of the corrupt, unelected Brussels EU commission. That is objective as you can get.

you could have just disagreed without being emotional about it. No country is entirely sovereign,there are always external factors that govern the decisions of a government. There is the USA trade block, China, EU, Asean and a little island sinking evermore into obscurity, the UK.

[Laughing Gravy]

29 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

you could have just disagreed without being emotional about it. No country is entirely sovereign,there are always external factors that govern the decisions of a government. There is the USA trade block, China, EU, Asean and a little island sinking evermore into obscurity, the UK.

OK I disagree. Certainly no emotion intended.

[jpinx]

12 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

 

The issue of the Art 50 being irrevocable once triggered is contestable. Note the government response after the HC verdict, it is government policy not to  revoke.

Under international law the right to change your mind exists

 

This is the reason Article 50 needs to have a fast-track debate and vote, with future debates to resolve the terms and conditions separately.  The continuing uncertainty is making a big headache for many who need to plan their business.

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

This is the reason Article 50 needs to have a fast-track debate and vote, with future debates to resolve the terms and conditions separately.  The continuing uncertainty is making a big headache for many who need to plan their business.

The EU might have some say in resolving the terms and conditions.

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The EU might have some say in resolving the terms and conditions.

 

Obviously, but the UK parliament has the final say on the conditions the UK will propose or accept.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, jpinx said:

 

Obviously, but the UK parliament has the final say on the conditions the UK will propose or accept.

Does it?  It might have the final say on what the UK will accept, but what it proposes?  I don't think the justices' decision addressed that issue.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Does it?  It might have the final say on what the UK will accept, but what it proposes?  I don't think the justices' decision addressed that issue.

 

Obviously it does, since the team doing the negotiating will need the framework of the deal they are aiming for.

[brewsterbudgen]

What to do if parliament reject the deal negotiated by the government after the 2 year timeframe

If Article 50 has been applied we leave on extremely unfavourable terms. If Article 50 is not applied until the terms of a new arrangement have been negotiated, we Remain.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[elliss]

23 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

This is the reason Article 50 needs to have a fast-track debate and vote, with future debates to resolve the terms and conditions separately.  The continuing uncertainty is making a big headache for many who need to plan their business.

 

     Fyi ,    Scottish Goverment are set to  oppose article 50 being implemented .

           More  hoops  , for  Madam Maybe ,  her  reign will be  short lived .

           Soon to join politcal recluse DC .

[Donutz]

Good to see that the courts have some common sense and that drastic things such as a Brexit, death penalty or the right of who is eligable to vote cannot be changed only on basis of a referendum result. Especially not with such divided outcome and low turnout. The only sensable thing would at the very least be discussions (voting) in parlaiment, or better yet new elections. 

[Laughing Gravy]

4 hours ago, Donutz said:

Good to see that the courts have some common sense and that drastic things such as a Brexit, death penalty or the right of who is eligable to vote cannot be changed only on basis of a referendum result. Especially not with such divided outcome and low turnout. The only sensable thing would at the very least be discussions (voting) in parlaiment, or better yet new elections. 

Really. Why don't then all elections get void every time a winner emerges. Lets go even further take it to by- elections. The whole point of the referendum was a simple in or out and the government respect the will (majority) of the people. It has been said countless times. If people can't accept such a basic principle then they should stop all voting, political parties, freedom of speech and just let the EU commission tell the UK and all the other European countries in it, what to do.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Really. Why don't then all elections get void every time a winner emerges. Lets go even further take it to by- elections. The whole point of the referendum was a simple in or out and the government respect the will (majority) of the people. It has been said countless times. If people can't accept such a basic principle then they should stop all voting, political parties, freedom of speech and just let the EU commission tell the UK and all the other European countries in it, what to do.

Referendums are an individuals opinion. Representation debates and discusses the issue at hand and likely consequences reaching decisions based as a whole .