Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

If you think many people in Scotland trust Trump I suspect that you are vastly mistaken.

 

Particularly in Aberdeenshire!

 

Even his ex mate Salmond, whose constituency the development is in and who, as Scottish First Minister, made sure Trump got to build his golf course on a SSSI despite the county council refusing planning permission, fell out with him when Trump objected to an offshore windfarm because it spoilt his view.

Why did it take Alex Salmond so long to turn on Donald Trump?

 

 

Actually, prior to the windfarm nonesense, people did like him.  He took on Turnberry hotel with a great fanfare.  The fallout with Salmond and now Sturgeon came later.  It's fun to watch "the Rise and Fall of Donald Trump". Now even the USA is wondering how they can get rid of him.  The thing that people often overlook is that DT has ZERO experience in public office, but extensive experience of business and "getting things done".  Compared to other such businessmen with a similar career-path, the wreckage along his trail is nothing like as extensive as many others.  In terms of Brexit, he has already extended the ready hand of trade agreement which will obviously strengthen the PM's hand when dealing with the EU.  There may be more to come, but give it time -- DT hasn't been sworn in yet

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Actually, prior to the windfarm nonesense, people did like him. ............

 

Well, Salmond did; but Salmond's constituents didn't; especially the Menie Estate residents whose lives he ruined.

 

Where are the thousands of jobs his development was supposed to create in the area? Nowhere to be seen. From the previous link

Quote

Trump’s development, in Aberdeenshire, employs fewer than 100 people and has lost millions of pounds since it opened.

 

A not unusual situation for Trump: Donald Trump's many business failures explained

Quote

Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.

 

[jpinx]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Well, Salmond did; but Salmond's constituents didn't; especially the Menie Estate residents whose lives he ruined.

 

Where are the thousands of jobs his development was supposed to create in the area? Nowhere to be seen. From the previous link

 

A not unusual situation for Trump: Donald Trump's many business failures explained

 

I'm not defending anything specifically, but it is easy to blame the figurehead of any organisation, even thought they had little to do with the management decisions in the corporation.

[dick dasterdly]

Does anyone know whether this court decision means that MPs have to vote on whether to enact article 50, or whether it means they have to vote on the final agreement?

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I'm not defending anything specifically, but it is easy to blame the figurehead of any organisation, even thought they had little to do with the management decisions in the corporation.

 

Are you predicting this will be Trump's excuse in 2020?

 

Or Boris's once the full effects of Brexit have come to pass?

Edited November 12, 2016 by 7by7

[jpinx]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

Does anyone know whether this court decision means that MPs have to vote on whether to enact article 50, or whether it means they have to vote on the final agreement?

The original appeal which basically would have forced a vote, has been counter appealed to the Supreme Court.  The result of the Supreme Court appeal will either allow the PM to pursue her original course of action in implementing Art 50, or will force her to go back to the house.  There is a possibility of further appeal, but that would be too ludicrous to contemplate -- the EU court of justice?  really??

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Are you predicting this will be Trump's excuse in 2020?

This is one guy who defies predictions :)

Edited November 12, 2016 by jpinx

[7by7]

26 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Does anyone know whether this court decision means that MPs have to vote on whether to enact article 50, or whether it means they have to vote on the final agreement?

 

Essentially, unless the decision is overturned by the Supreme Court, it means an Act of Parliament will be required before the government can trigger Article 50.

 

Doubtless, if they have to, the government will attempt to introduce a basic, even one line, Bill to grant them the power to trigger Article 50; but it wont be as simple as that. All Bills have to be approved by both Houses, Commons and Lords, before being granted Royal Assent and becoming an Act.

 

In the Commons there is no doubt that many MPs will want to add amendments and clauses making it far more complicated than it needs to be. Once passed by the Commons the Lords can then also add amendments and clauses, which means it being sent back to the Commons for those to be approved. Although under the Parliament Act 1949 the Lords can only delay a Bill for a maximum of one year after which they have to bend to the will of the Commons and pass it.

 

So although passing an Act to trigger Article 50 seems on the face of things simple; in reality it is fraught with complications and delay. Certainly Mrs. May's target of next March would be impossible. I can fully understand why she wishes to by pass all this and simply get on with it!

 

Addendum:

Interesting discussion on this point on Radio 4's Law in Action last Thursday.

 

That may not play outside the UK.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 7by7
Addendum

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The original appeal which basically would have forced a vote, has been counter appealed to the Supreme Court.  The result of the Supreme Court appeal will either allow the PM to pursue her original course of action in implementing Art 50, or will force her to go back to the house.  There is a possibility of further appeal, but that would be too ludicrous to contemplate -- the EU court of justice?  really??

So it seems likely that we will end up with MPs deciding on whether to enact article 50.

 

But the appeal plays into May's hands I suppose, as she's always said that she didn't intend to implement article 50 until next year.

 

Interesting times indeed if MPs decide to over-ride the referendum result.

[jpinx]

39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So it seems likely that we will end up with MPs deciding on whether to enact article 50.

 

But the appeal plays into May's hands I suppose, as she's always said that she didn't intend to implement article 50 until next year.

 

Interesting times indeed if MPs decide to over-ride the referendum result.

The challenge will start on 5 December and is expected to last four days.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-legal-challenge-live-supreme-court-theresa-may-permission-article-50-ruling-a7404971.html

 

Microsoft Word - Grounds for Appeal.docx - Grounds_of_Appeal_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union.pdf

 

As expected, all 11 Supreme Court justices will sit to decide the case – this reflects the constitutional importance of the case as previously the largest Supreme Court panel to hear a case has consisted of nine justices.

https://www.ft.com/content/8b625b3e-331a-38a6-9db2-3a1553462a5e

Edited November 12, 2016 by jpinx

[7by7]

 

53 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

But the appeal plays into May's hands I suppose, as she's always said that she didn't intend to implement article 50 until next year.

 

On the contrary.

 

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling until January.

 

If it upholds the High Court's ruling than an Act of Parliament will be required before Article 50 can be triggered. Passing that Act could take over a year; possibly up to two.

 

So it could be that Article 50 isn't triggered until 2018; possibly even 2019!

 

As I said above

54 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So although passing an Act to trigger Article 50 seems on the face of things simple; in reality it is fraught with complications and delay. Certainly Mrs. May's target of next March would be impossible. I can fully understand why she wishes to by pass all this and simply get on with it!

 

Of course if the Supreme Court overturns the High Court then Mrs. May can stick to her preferred timetable; but to be honest the more I look into this the more I believe that they wont.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 7by7

[nontabury]

56 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So it seems likely that we will end up with MPs deciding on whether to enact article 50.

 

But the appeal plays into May's hands I suppose, as she's always said that she didn't intend to implement article 50 until next year.

 

Interesting times indeed if MPs decide to over-ride the referendum result.

 

  If the M.P's do vote on this issue,it will be very interesting to see how many are prepared to commit political suicide. If they vote against the democratic wishes of the electorate.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by nontabury

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

On the contrary.

 

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling until January.

 

If it upholds the High Court's ruling than an Act of Parliament will be required before Article 50 can be triggered. Passing that Act could take over a year; possibly up to two.

 

As I said above

 

Of course if the Supreme Court overturns the High Court then Mrs. May can stick to her preferred timetable; but to be honest the more I look into this the more I believe that they wont.

Which brings us back to interesting times ahead if MPs vote to reject the referendum result.

 

Even more 'interesting' if other EU countries with elections next year also reject the pro EU politicians in their countries.

[7by7]

There is a big difference between a delegate and a representative. 

 

A delegate is someone who votes according to the wishes and instructions of those who appointed them; in the case of an MP that would be their constituents.

 

However, under our Parliamentary system MPs are not delegates; they are representatives.

 

As representatives MPs vote according to what they, themselves consider to be in the best interests of their constituents and therefore the country as a whole. That's the theory, anyway; in reality they vote the way their party's whips tell them too!

 

On this specific issue, though, as MPs were given a free vote and they voted 6 to 1 in favour of a referendum it would be extremely perverse if they then voted to ignore the result of that referendum Certainly Mrs. May and her cabinet, most of whom were on the remain side, have publicly stated that they have accepted the referendum result.

 

If or when it comes to a Commons vote she could always use a three line whip to bring any Tory remain rebels into line. Those rebels would be well aware of the consequences of disobeying that; not just personally, having the whip withdrawn, but also the government losing a major vote, leading to a motion of no confidence which if the government lost would result in a general election.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is that attitude of calling people racist, xenophobic, chauvinist, numpties, stupid, uneducated, ignorant, that is creating the populist uprising  across Europe and the USA. Keep saying things like that, not respecting peoples opinions on caring for themselves first. Note, caring for themselves first. I care about the other European countries but like caring for your own children first, then others second is a natural instinct.

Keep going with that mentality and the rest of Europe will follow with the populist uprising. Well done Grouse, totally out of touch with the people.

What's wrong with chauvinist? That's me being polite! I should have said nasty racist bigots ?

 

Bet it you did not look at that documentary. You might have learnt something.

 

Sometimes fools don't know what's best. Don't you agree? There are people much smarter than me.....

 

I am not exaggerating when I say sometimes I'm ashamed to be British?

 

On a night flight to LHR tonight. The A380 beds are supposed to be good so I might get some sleep ?

[Grouse]

51 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

  If the M.P's do vote on this issue,it will be very interesting to see how many are prepared to commit political suicide. If they vote against the democratic wishes of the electorate.

 

 

 

MPs will leverage this to get a soft Brexit approach. I trust MPs to do their best to get the least worst solution. So far the three Brexiteers have done a great job at alienating the very people they need to negotiate terms with. Parliament needs to keep them on a short leash. Actually, I hope they vote against and trigger an election.

[Loeilad]

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

You're mixing "country" with "continent".  Everyone can live in any nation state country if they pass the requirements for entry and working.  The EU's attitude is that the countries under their "command" no longer count.  In that case they should create a nation state called Europstan and have elections.  Let's see how that one plays out :)

what do you mean "see how it plays out" - they already have elections and a parliament.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Loeilad said:

what do you mean "see how it plays out" - they already have elections and a parliament.

They do not have a "nation-state", so voting for MEP's who sit in a body that is only bound together by treaties which can be broken, makes the government of Europstan a flimsy affair - to say the least.  The numbers of countries potentially queuing at the exit is growing fast.

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

MPs will leverage this to get a soft Brexit approach. I trust MPs to do their best to get the least worst solution. So far the three Brexiteers have done a great job at alienating the very people they need to negotiate terms with. Parliament needs to keep them on a short leash. Actually, I hope they vote against and trigger an election.

Depending on the final court ruling, the MP's will do what they're told

[Grouse]

30 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Depending on the final court ruling, the MP's will do what they're told

By whom?

 

The whips?

 

I wouldn't bet on it. They just might  go for the doomsday option

 

Many people have strong views about this matter 

[gmac]

23 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

So basically you want the right to live wherever in the world you choose, but at the same time you want to prevent EU nationals having that right if it means that they choose to live in the country that you left many years ago?

 

Not quite.  I have no right to live in Thailand, I apply to the immigration department on an annual basis and they allow me to stay here if I have enough money.  EU nationals on the other hand can come to the UK with nothing and expect the state to look after them. 

[Ace of Pop]

It's a wonder Patriot isn't banned in these P.C. times A racist slur to lefties by now I'd have thought,Bleat Bleat bleat.[emoji572]️


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Johnyo]

 
Not quite.  I have no right to live in Thailand, I apply to the immigration department on an annual basis and they allow me to stay here if I have enough money.  EU nationals on the other hand can come to the UK with nothing and expect the state to look after them. 

Are you sure? So you are saying that a Young Brit can just go to live in the Mediterranean and French, Spanish or Italian governments will just look after them? It's a wonder why the would stay in Bolton or Scunthorpe when they could be basking in the sun.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[gmac]

Just now, Johnyo said:

 

Are you sure? So you are saying that a Young Brit can just go to live in the Mediterranean and French, Spanish or Italian governments will just look after them? It's a wonder why the would stay in Bolton or Scunthorpe when they could be basking in the sun.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Not that either.  I am talking about the EU nationals coming to the UK because they have heard that they can get free handouts from the state not Brits moving the other way.  Yes the freedom to move is currently there but other EU countries are not so foolish in giving handouts to every  immigrant that arrives with his hands held out for cash.

[rockingrobin]

12 hours ago, jpinx said:

The original appeal which basically would have forced a vote, has been counter appealed to the Supreme Court.  The result of the Supreme Court appeal will either allow the PM to pursue her original course of action in implementing Art 50, or will force her to go back to the house.  There is a possibility of further appeal, but that would be too ludicrous to contemplate -- the EU court of justice?  really??

How will there be a further appeal. The Supreme court cannot be overruled by the ECJ . If the SC verdict is dependent upon interpretation of EU law then its obliged to seek preliminary ruling from ECJ before giving its judgement

[Ace of Pop]

He said U.K. not EU.Clearly you are a supporter of TheEntitled Generation


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Johnyo]

Not that either.  I am talking about the EU nationals coming to the UK because they have heard that they can get free handouts from the state not Brits moving the other way.  Yes the freedom to move is currently there but other EU countries are not so foolish in giving handouts to every  immigrant that arrives with his hands held out for cash.

Not true. A Spanish person cannot just arrive in the U.K. And go straight to the social and claim benefits. It's a myth created by Brexiteers. You have to go and work and be working for a number of years before you have the right to any benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How will there be a further appeal. The Supreme court cannot be overruled by the ECJ . If the SC verdict is dependent upon interpretation of EU law then its obliged to seek preliminary ruling from ECJ before giving its judgement

I agree that it's more complicated than a straight-forward judgement.  This *should* be a case of defining the reach of the Crown Prerogative, but given that EU law is on the periphery it would be no surprise to hear that the ECJ might get involved. 

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, gmac said:

Not that either.  I am talking about the EU nationals coming to the UK because they have heard that they can get free handouts from the state not Brits moving the other way.  Yes the freedom to move is currently there but other EU countries are not so foolish in giving handouts to every  immigrant that arrives with his hands held out for cash.

The Freedom of Movement is conditional and as a directive it is up to the national states to how it is implemented into national laws. If in the Uk it is more generous than the actual directive requirements then that would be as the result of UK parliament

[jpinx]

12 minutes ago, Johnyo said:

 

Not true. A Spanish person cannot just arrive in the U.K. And go straight to the social and claim benefits. It's a myth created by Brexiteers. You have to go and work and be working for a number of years before you have the right to any benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

It would take a "Benefits Expert" to unravel how the system works, but it is certainly the case that many EU people roll up in UK and get work very quickly, displacing the local labour because of the paltry wages the EU folks will accept.   Someone might know how long an EU national needs to be in employment and paying contributions and taxes before they can stop work and go on the dole?  There is also the case of Child Benefits - which have nothing to do with employment status.  The UK's system is overly complicated and impossible to fathom, even when you're in it.

Edited November 13, 2016 by jpinx