Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[SheungWan]

On 12/11/2016 at 1:28 PM, 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 High Court decision is solely about the application of Article 50. The suggestion that parliament should not vote on any final agreement would be an abrogation of parliamentary democracy.

[nontabury]

The sovereignty of the nation belongs to the people, not Parliament,not Politicians and certainly not to E.U. Sympathetic unelected judges.

 Cameron told parliament and the people that a vote to leave the EU, meant leaving the single market,custom Union and the Brussels burocracy,etc., He also said that in the event of a Brexit vote,that he would immediately action article 50. So that was another promise he failed to keep.

  All the pluses and negatives for remaining in the EU were fully discussed in the months leading up to the referendum, no caveats, it was simple leave or not leave.

    Then we had the immigrant banker( married to a hedge fund manager who has made millions by moving money around the world,a friend of Soras) Gina Miller trying to con us into believing that out of the goodness of her heart,she had self funded an appeal to the high court,stateing that this major decision Must firstly be approved by parliament. In the hope that parliament would betray the democratic vote of the people,the same people they are supposed to represent.

  Just  ask yourself, where were the likes of Gina Miller over the last 41yrs, during which time Parliament transferred away British sovereignty in treaties after treaties such as Masstricht and Lisbon( Gordon Bigot Brown even promising a referendum on Lisbon) and where were the high court judges. Why were  the British people not told in 1973 by Edward Heath or by Harold Wilson In the 1975 EEC referendum, that this would result in our sacrificing our sovereignty to the dictators in Brussels, " NO" we were told it was a trading pact and nothing more.

     The making of this so called EU has been carried out behind the backs of the people,unfortunately for the arrogant political class they've been tumbled, as the people have voted NO Inspite of all the lies spouted by the remainers and their backers in the corporate media.

 

 Tony Benn ( not my favorite politician ) said if you were to meet the likes of Tusk or Junker ask them,

1/ What powers do you have?

2/ Where did you get it?

3/ In whose interest do you exercise it?

4/ To whome are you accountable ?

5/ How can we get rid of you ?

 

well the answer to No 5 was by the people voting in a democratic referendum.

[Johnyo]

The sovereignty of the nation belongs to the people, not Parliament,not Politicians and certainly not to E.U. Sympathetic unelected judges.
 Cameron told parliament and the people that a vote to leave the EU, meant leaving the single market,custom Union and the Brussels burocracy,etc., He also said that in the event of a Brexit vote,that he would immediately action article 50. So that was another promise he failed to keep.
  All the pluses and negatives for remaining in the EU were fully discussed in the months leading up to the referendum, no caveats, it was simple leave or not leave.
    Then we had the immigrant banker( married to a hedge fund manager who has made millions by moving money around the world,a friend of Soras) Gina Miller trying to con us into believing that out of the goodness of her heart,she had self funded an appeal to the high court,stateing that this major decision Must firstly be approved by parliament. In the hope that parliament would betray the democratic vote of the people,the same people they are supposed to represent.
  Just  ask yourself, where were the likes of Gina Miller over the last 41yrs, during which time Parliament transferred away British sovereignty in treaties after treaties such as Masstricht and Lisbon( Gordon Bigot Brown even promising a referendum on Lisbon) and where were the high court judges. Why were  the British people not told in 1973 by Edward Heath or by Harold Wilson In the 1975 EEC referendum, that this would result in our sacrificing our sovereignty to the dictators in Brussels, " NO" we were told it was a trading pact and nothing more.
     The making of this so called EU has been carried out behind the backs of the people,unfortunately for the arrogant political class they've been tumbled, as the people have voted NO Inspite of all the lies spouted by the remainers and their backers in the corporate media.
 
 Tony Benn ( not my favorite politician ) said if you were to meet the likes of Tusk or Junker ask them,
1/ What powers do you have?
2/ Where did you get it?
3/ In whose interest do you exercise it?
4/ To whome are you accountable ?
5/ How can we get rid of you ?
 
well the answer to No 5 was by the people voting in a democratic referendum.

I had to pick myself up from the floor after your first sentence. You really believe that the people matter in any democracy? You and me we are just pawns. As the great Frank Zappa said "Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex"

In the end Brexit no Brexit there are only certain individuals benefiting and it's not you or me.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Laughing Gravy]

What I do find difficult to comprehend is the fact it would seem some people just can't accept that a democratic referendum took place and there was an outcome.

Secondly some people seem to actually want the UK to fall flat and become an isolated, economic failure, all because the majority wanted out of the EU. It has been argued on various threads about this.

 

Now Trump has won in the US who supported the fact the UK voted brexit. This man is going to be president of one of, if not the most important nation on the planet. Some people would seem they are happy 'to bite their own noses to spite their face'.

 

This year has brought the EU into the 'limelight' and many people are seeing what it is for. Change, certainly not. Control, absolutely. I forecast that next year there will be even more grief for the EU. The EU is like the Titanic sinking ,only this time there are enough lifeboats, it is only the smart ones, that are using them.

[sandyf]

Brexit and the will of the people - saw this elsewhere - quite appropriate.

 

(Knock-knock! )

- Hello! How are you? Look, I'm Her Majesty's Government and I am here to ask you if you would like to see a complete overhaul of the NHS and of the State Pensions funding schemes?
- Er... Well, my pension is sh*t and it does look like the NHS is on the brink of collapse, so ... well, yes, I would!
- OK! Great! Tick this case here, please, and have a nice day, bye!
- Hang on, wait a minute, what it is that you are going to do, exactly?
- Oh, don't you worry about that, Love. Now that you have ticked that case, all you need to do is sit back and let your Government enforce the will of the people.
- Yes, but I could lose my sh*tty pension altogether, and I don't want to pay for private health services, in fact I can't afford...!
- Yes, you may well have to live with that, Love, but it's the will of the people!
- No, but that's not on! I'll have a word with my MP....
- Nah, don't bother, we have no intention to share our plans, and even if we end having a vote on it in Parliament, most of the MPs understand that they have to enforce the will of the people. 
- ...But...
- Here, here, go back inside, it's cold and you don't want to overload the NHS any further, do you, Love?

 

(Knock-knock! )

 

- Hello! How are you? Look, I'm Her Majesty's Government and I am here to ask you if you would like to see a complete overhaul of the NHS and of the State Pensions funding schemes?

- Er... Well, my pension is sh*t and it does look like the NHS is on the brink of collapse, so ... well, yes, I would!

- OK! Great! Tick this case here, please, and have a nice day, bye!

- Hang on, wait a minute, what it is that you are going to do, exactly?

- Oh, don't you worry about that, Love. Now that you have ticked that case, all you need to do is sit back and let your Government enforce the will of the people.

- Yes, but I could lose my sh*tty pension altogether, and I don't want to pay for private health services, in fact I can't afford...!

- Yes, you may well have to live with that, Love, but it's the will of the people!

- No, but that's not on! I'll have a word with my MP....

- Nah, don't bother, we have no intention to share our plans, and even if we end having a vote on it in Parliament, most of the MPS understand that they have to enforce the will of the people. 

- ...But...

- Here, here, go back inside, it's cold and you don't want to overload the NHS any further, do you, Love?

(Knock-knock! )

 

- Hello! How are you? Look, I'm Her Majesty's Government and I am here to ask you if you would like to see a complete overhaul of the NHS and of the State Pensions funding schemes?

- Er... Well, my pension is sh*t and it does look like the NHS is on the brink of collapse, so ... well, yes, I would!

- OK! Great! Tick this case here, please, and have a nice day, bye!

- Hang on, wait a minute, what it is that you are going to do, exactly?

- Oh, don't you worry about that, Love. Now that you have ticked that case, all you need to do is sit back and let your Government enforce the will of the people.

- Yes, but I could lose my sh*tty pension altogether, and I don't want to pay for private health services, in fact I can't afford...!

- Yes, you may well have to live with that, Love, but it's the will of the people!

- No, but that's not on! I'll have a word with my MP....

- Nah, don't bother, we have no intention to share our plans, and even if we end having a vote on it in Parliament, most of the MPS understand that they have to enforce the will of the people. 

- ...But...

- Here, here, go back inside, it's cold and you don't want to overload the NHS any further, do you, Love?

 

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Both EU and svhengen allow free movement of people....no borders

I am never sure if it is deliberate or something else when people ignore the context.

My comment was in respect of the Treaty of Rome - nothing else.

If you wish to make an arbitrary comment, leave me out of it.

[Loeilad]

It's a dog's Brexit - the referendum is only advisory and the whole thing needs to be scrapped......I can't find anyone with a reasoned argument to continue with this farce and it is gradually descending into a fiasco.....well let's face it you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

White can't cope - 10000 more civil servants needed

 

the debacle continues...........let's hope common sense prevails in the end! (or hopefully before the end!)

[Loeilad]

On 11/15/2016 at 10:19 AM, sandyf said:

I am never sure if it is deliberate or something else when people ignore the context.

My comment was in respect of the Treaty of Rome - nothing else.

If you wish to make an arbitrary comment, leave me out of it.

Clearly stated aim in the Treaty of Rome!

[sandyf]

There seems to be some confusion between the Treaty of Rome, EU and Schengen.

 

The Treaty of Rome

The Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community in 1957, referred to four fundamental freedoms of the common market: free movement of goods, services, capital and workers. 

Article 48 of the Treaty established the principle of the free movement of workers and outlawed discrimination between workers of the member states (the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the member states was also set out in Article 7).

Single European Act 1986

A more generalised free movement of persons for nationals of the member states within the enlarged European Community was hastened following the Single European Act, which came into force in 1987. The treaty was championed by UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who wished to see the European customs union developed more fully into a single market, with the removal of internal barriers impeding the free flow of capital, goods, and services. A more generalised free movement of persons was viewed as necessary to realise a genuine single market.

Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) 1992

The Single European Act unleashed an accelerated drive to economic and monetary union (including the establishment of a single currency) and deeper political co-operation which was reflected in the Treaty on European Union (or Maastricht Treaty) signed in 1992.

In revising the previous treaties, a new Article 8 established European citizenship, bringing together the existing rights already enjoyed by EC citizens including that of free movement, and creating new citizenship rights. These include:

The right of every citizen of the EU to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Article 8a)

Freedom of Movement in practice

The European Parliament and Council of Ministers adopted a Directive in 2004 (2004/38/EC) consolidating and further developing the various key regulations and directives implementing free movement principles.*

It states that the right of residence in a member state for EU citizens (other than that of which they are a citizen) for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions. That is, they must:

either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;
or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories.

https://neweuropeans.net/where-do-my-rights-come-eu-citizen

 

[sandyf]

Boris had this to say on the matter.

 

It is a “myth” and "<deleted>" that the free movement of people is one of the European Union’s founding principles, according to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-freedom-of-movement-myth-immigration-eu-uk-a7419026.html

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Loeilad said:

It's a dog's Brexit - the referendum is only advisory and the whole thing needs to be scrapped......I can't find anyone with a reasoned argument to continue with this farce and it is gradually descending into a fiasco.....well let's face it you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

White can't cope - 10000 more civil servants needed

 

the debacle continues...........let's hope common sense prevails in the end! (or hopefully before the end!)

 

But it was NOT advisory,Cameron laid the terms for the referendum before the House of Commons, the HOC then voted on those terms by a majority. The reason you cannot find anyone with what you consider a reasoned arguement,is simple that you do not agree with other people's point of view, Get over it and stop your moaning.

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, nontabury said:

But it was NOT advisory,Cameron laid the terms for the referendum before the House of Commons, the HOC then voted on those terms by a majority.

In order for it to be binding it would have to be an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. A simple resolution to hold a plebiscite does not bind the parliament (and i would have voted for Brexit had I been a UK citizen so don't assume I'm anti-Brexit)

[Khun Han]

47 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

But it was NOT advisory,Cameron laid the terms for the referendum before the House of Commons, the HOC then voted on those terms by a majority. The reason you cannot find anyone with what you consider a reasoned arguement,is simple that you do not agree with other people's point of view, Get over it and stop your moaning.

 

They usually hide behind technicalities and legalese to argue that a referendum the result of which was made clear to the people would be binding is not really binding.

[Khun Han]

43 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

In order for it to be binding it would have to be an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. A simple resolution to hold a plebiscite does not bind the parliament (and i would have voted for Brexit had I been a UK citizen so don't assume I'm anti-Brexit)

 

It's irrelevant. The government couldn't have made it any clearer that they would act according to the result of the referendum.

[SaintLouisBlues]

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

It's irrelevant. The government couldn't have made it any clearer that they would act according to the result of the referendum.

Dream on. That's why the Courts have said it will take an Act of Parliament either to initialise (London) or finalise (Belfast). The government (majority = 8) could easily lose the vote in one or other Houses of Parliament. That's what parliamentary democracy and the rule of law means. You're also confusing the will of the government with the parliamentary resolution that authorized the plebiscite. It merely approved the wording of the question and the holding of the plebiscite, nothing more. Nothing can bind a UK government except an Act of Parliament, whatever they may promise will happen

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Dream on. That's why the Courts have said it will take an Act of Parliament either to initialise (London) or finalise (Belfast). The government (majority = 8) could easily lose the vote in one or other Houses of Parliament. That's what parliamentary democracy and the rule of law means. You're also confusing the will of the government with the parliamentary resolution that authorized the plebiscite. It merely approved the wording of the question and the holding of the plebiscite, nothing more. Nothing can bind a UK government except an Act of Parliament, whatever they may promise will happen

 

I understand your point, and I understand the legal technicalities reasonably well. And remain are pinning their hopes on those techicalities. But the referendum was not a throwaway election manifesto clause. There will be all kinds of repercussions of the kind that the establishment really don't want if they try to wriggle out of this with legalese and procedure.

[Loeilad]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Boris had this to say on the matter.

 

It is a “myth” and "<deleted>" that the free movement of people is one of the European Union’s founding principles, according to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-freedom-of-movement-myth-immigration-eu-uk-a7419026.html

well it isn't "Article 48 of the Treaty established the principle of the free movement of workers and outlawed discrimination between workers of the member states (the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the member states was also set out in Article 7)."

[SheungWan]

55 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

They usually hide behind technicalities and legalese to argue that a referendum the result of which was made clear to the people would be binding is not really binding.

 

Neither a technicality nor legalese as you quaintly put it. It is primacy of the law, independence of the judiciary and authority of parliament which prevail. Playing Royal Prerogative (how many hundreds of years since the Civil War?) just ain't on. From you, the Daily Express or anybody else throwing a tantrum.

[Khun Han]

56 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Neither a technicality nor legalese as you quaintly put it. It is primacy of the law, independence of the judiciary and authority of parliament which prevail. Playing Royal Prerogative (how many hundreds of years since the Civil War?) just ain't on. From you, the Daily Express or anybody else throwing a tantrum.

 

Like I said, remainers will use any techicality or legal process that they can find in, order to overturn what was agreed by everyone prior to the vote to be a democratic and binding decision. As so eloquently put by SheungWan above. And they will do so in a most patronising/condescending way, as also exemplified by SheungWan above.

[SheungWan]

45 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Like I said, remainers will use any techicality or legal process that they can find in, order to overturn what was agreed by everyone prior to the vote to be a democratic and binding decision. As so eloquently put by SheungWan above. And they will do so in a most patronising/condescending way, as also exemplified by SheungWan above.

 

If there is one thing Hard Brexiteers will refuse until they are blue in the face it is the ability to distinguish between decision and subsequent process and implementation. If they didn't do that they would have to acknowledge that there are significant differences between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit. So what do they actually do? Well, that's pretty obvious from some of the above contributions. First, try to pretend that Soft Brexit doesn't exist and secondly persistently bleat about being patronised or condescended to. Poor diddums! The other giveaway is the relegation of UK law to the broom cupboard. Well fancy that!

[Khun Han]

Good article in The Spectacularly Boring by Brendan O'Neill (might even make Bill have a re-think )from a while back which lampoons the type of mentality shown by remainers in these discussions:

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/betraying-brexit-revolt-elites-people/

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, Loeilad said:

well it isn't "Article 48 of the Treaty established the principle of the free movement of workers and outlawed discrimination between workers of the member states (the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the member states was also set out in Article 7)."

" the free movement of people is one of the European Union’s founding principles,  "

 

That depends on whether you view the foundation of the EU lies in the Treaty of Rome or in the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) 1992.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I understand your point, and I understand the legal technicalities reasonably well. And remain are pinning their hopes on those techicalities. But the referendum was not a throwaway election manifesto clause. There will be all kinds of repercussions of the kind that the establishment really don't want if they try to wriggle out of this with legalese and procedure.

We are already familiar with the repercussions. Of course these committee reports are all media distortion and fabrication, the stock answer.

 

Brexit campaigners tried to “toxify” the debate on leaving the European Union, a Home Affairs Committee examining hate crime and its violent consequences has heard. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-leave-eu-arron-banks-toxify-referendum-debate-brexit-a7421206.html

[Orac]

53 minutes ago, sandyf said:

" the free movement of people is one of the European Union’s founding principles,  "

 

That depends on whether you view the foundation of the EU lies in the Treaty of Rome or in the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) 1992.

 

 

It is clearly stated in the Treaty of Rome from back in 1957 so predates the UK joining.

 

http://www.gleichstellung.uni-freiburg.de/dokumente/treaty-of-rome

 

 

 

[SaintLouisBlues]

20 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Like I said, remainers will use any techicality or legal process that they can find in, order to overturn what was agreed by everyone prior to the vote to be a democratic and binding decision. As so eloquently put by SheungWan above. And they will do so in a most patronising/condescending way, as also exemplified by SheungWan above.

Are you suggesting that if the parliament fails to pass the enabling legislation that will be because "remainers will use any techicality or legal process that they can find in, order to overturn" the Brexit decision. Then what are you going to do? Stamp your foot?

[Khun Han]

43 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Are you suggesting that if the parliament fails to pass the enabling legislation that will be because "remainers will use any techicality or legal process that they can find in, order to overturn" the Brexit decision. Then what are you going to do? Stamp your foot?

 

I won't be doing anything much, my man. But, my crystal ball tells me that, should there be a brexit reversal, the outcome of the next general election will see a whole new political landscape, and one that the establishment won't like at all. The referendum result was just a shot across the bows. There's  a sea change going on in western politics. Didn't you notice?

[Loeilad]

Let's be real - there isn't a single academic paper or any newspaper (even the proBrexit ones) that has an article extolling the virtues of Brexit.

most point out the nigh-impossible prospects and the pro Brexit just feebly try to defend their untenable positions

[Laughing Gravy]

On ‎16‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:59 PM, Loeilad said:

well it isn't "Article 48 of the Treaty established the principle of the free movement of workers and outlawed discrimination between workers of the member states (the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the member states was also set out in Article 7)."

It would seem the EU don't give any concern for what other EU countries vote for and just go ahead with their agenda. It basically sums up the EU and their dictatorship style. No wonder the majority of people voted for brexit. The sooner the better. Lets hope the Dutch 'see the light' and send the EU packing with a new political force. The EU will never learn or reform. As I have always said it is about federalization and control of the EU countries.

 

"And today they did precisely that as EU states agreed to waive visas for Ukrainians in a move bound to infuriate Dutch voters and boost support for eurosceptic parties. 

In a display of stunning arrogance, they did not even mention the Dutch vote as they crowed about the completion of the deal."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733581/dutch-referendum-ignored-eu-rubberstamps-visa-free-travel-ukraine

[stevenl]

58 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It would seem the EU don't give any concern for what other EU countries vote for and just go ahead with their agenda. It basically sums up the EU and their dictatorship style. No wonder the majority of people voted for brexit. The sooner the better. Lets hope the Dutch 'see the light' and send the EU packing with a new political force. The EU will never learn or reform. As I have always said it is about federalization and control of the EU countries.

 

"And today they did precisely that as EU states agreed to waive visas for Ukrainians in a move bound to infuriate Dutch voters and boost support for eurosceptic parties. 

In a display of stunning arrogance, they did not even mention the Dutch vote as they crowed about the completion of the deal."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733581/dutch-referendum-ignored-eu-rubberstamps-visa-free-travel-ukraine

It looks like it is not seen the same way in the Netherlands. Nothing about this in the media, also not in the ones that supported the no vote in the referendum.

[Laughing Gravy]

Have to say a very good article from a man I really don't like as a politician. Michael Gove.

 

The EU, however, has not been the role model for the rest of humanity its architects expected. Instead it’s been left looking like a failed exercise in historical re-enactment, the political equivalent of Jurassic Park.

 

If my fellow liberals want more populism and protectionism, more Orbans and Trumps, then they should carry on sneering at deplorable nationalists and smugly pronouncing that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. But if they really want to see decency, civility and empathy flourish in our politics they should start showing some themselves — to the fellow citizens whose only crime is loyalty.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/patriotism-must-no-longer-be-a-dirty-word-lxf0wssth