Court case on whether Brexit can be reversed to be filed Friday

[7by7]

15 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

Try looking at the list of EU directives I think you'll find.OH YES THEY DID.

 

From the EU Commission itself.

 

Bananas and Brussels

Quote

Myth: Curved bananas have been banned by Brussels bureaucrats, with shops ordered not to sell fruit which is too small or abnormally bent.
Sources: The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express (21 September 1994)

Truth: Yes … and no. Curved bananas have not been banned. In fact, as with the supposed banning of curved cucumbers, the Commission regulation classifies bananas according to quality and size for the sake of easing the trade of bananas internationally.

 

 

[Alan Deer]

33 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

I have to completely disagree. 1 point (I can think of so many) the EU will no longer tell the British what size and type of bend a bannana has to have. And yes they did before you say rubish.

Not my main reasons for getting out of EU but something like that just proves how pedantic the EU parliament really are wasting money on silly stupid directives

QED! - bananas!!!!

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Alan Deer said:

QED - no rational comments EVER from the Brexit camp.....

How do Merkel, Schultz, etc see the EU ?  They have declared for a totally federated Europe. 

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

QED! - bananas!!!!

Try to read the story of Metrication and the considerable hassle the authoritarianism of Brussels produced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_units_of_measurement_directives

 

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm at a loss as to why anyone would waste money on starting a court case as to whether brexit could be reversed?

 

Of course it can!  A General Election with a party advocating reversing the referendum result and the (likely) parliament vote to activate article 50, could eventually result in a party with a mandate to come up with a new law to nullify the activating article 50 parliamentary vote.

 

Alternatively, even once the UK leaves the EU - a political party can stand for re-joining, and (assuming the EU countries agree) rejoin.

 

In short, what is the point of this court case?

 

9 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The OP actually explains what it's about fairly well, but fails to extrapolate the consequences...

My mistake ,

 

I gather this is about whether only the top EU court with the agreement of all 27 countries can agree to article 50 being activated? 

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The OP actually explains what it's about fairly well, but fails to extrapolate the consequences...

 

The consequences are simple; and, of course, dependent upon the judgement..

 

1) The courts decide that triggering Article 50 is irrevocable.

 

This means that whatever happens, once Article 50 is triggered we are out of the EU. Which is what the people decided in the referendum and what the government has promised will happen.

 

But it does not mean that at some time in the future we could not apply to rejoin; if they'd have us.

 

2) The courts decide that triggering Article 50 is revocable.

 

As far as the UK is concerned, not much, if anything, will change. As already said, the government have promised to follow the will of the people as expressed in the referendum and so leave the EU.

 

However if the government decides to remain in the EU after Article 50 has been triggered but before the final exit, then this would be possible.

 

But, as both dick dastardly and myself said earlier, that would only happen if there were a General Election and a party promising to reverse Brexit won.

 

So, will this case and it's eventual judgement have any effect on Brexit?

 

Only if Sturgeon becomes Prime Minister of the UK!

 

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

My mistake ,

 

I gather this is about whether only the top EU court with the agreement of all 27 countries can agree to article 50 being activated? 

No. it's about whether a country which triggers Article 50 can change it's mind afterwards.

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The consequences are simple; and, of course, dependent upon the judgement..

 

1) The courts decide that triggering Article 50 is irrevocable.

 

This means that whatever happens, once Article 50 is triggered we are out of the EU. Which is what the people decided in the referendum and what the government has promised will happen.

 

But it does not mean that at some time in the future we could not apply to rejoin; if they'd have us.

 

2) The courts decide that triggering Article 50 is revocable.

 

As far as the UK is concerned, not much, if anything, will change. As already said, the government have promised to follow the will of the people as expressed in the referendum and so leave the EU.

 

However if the government decides to remain in the EU after Article 50 has been triggered but before the final exit, then this would be possible.

 

But, as both dick dastardly and myself said earlier, that would only happen if there were a General Election and a party promising to reverse Brexit won.

 

So, will this case and it's eventual judgement have any effect on Brexit?

 

Only if Sturgeon becomes Prime Minister of the UK!

 

The real politics of this are far more complicated and timing will play a large part.  I've already explained about the ramifications and I'm losing the will to live with so many threads about Brexit open at the same time,   Would somebody like to condense them in to one, and close all the others?

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The consequences are simple; and, of course, dependent upon the judgement..

 

1) The courts decide that triggering Article 50 is irrevocable.

 

This means that whatever happens, once Article 50 is triggered we are out of the EU. Which is what the people decided in the referendum and what the government has promised will happen.

 

But it does not mean that at some time in the future we could not apply to rejoin; if they'd have us.

 

2) The courts decide that triggering Article 50 is revocable.

 

As far as the UK is concerned, not much, if anything, will change. As already said, the government have promised to follow the will of the people as expressed in the referendum and so leave the EU.

 

However if the government decides to remain in the EU after Article 50 has been triggered but before the final exit, then this would be possible.

 

But, as both dick dastardly and myself said earlier, that would only happen if there were a General Election and a party promising to reverse Brexit won.

 

So, will this case and it's eventual judgement have any effect on Brexit?

 

Only if Sturgeon becomes Prime Minister of the UK!

 

Thank you - I obviously misunderstood.

[14Stevie]

1 hour ago, Alan Deer said:

Brexit must be stopped, one way or another it is a total disaster - it no longer can even draw on a majority to defend it yet the loony right are desperately trying to push something - ...anything through....in order to keep their surprise jobs.

 

if you are in any doubt about Brexit, just take a moment and try to find a single rational argument in favour of it........there simply isn't one.

Please explain with FACTS  How is Brexit a total disaster

Please explain and ACTUALLY PROVE how it "can no longer even draw a majority to defend it."

Please explain with FACTS What are the "surprise "jobs you profess will appear.

 

Interested in your detailed and factual response.....

 

If you can factually approve all of the above then your request for people to find a single rational argument in favour of Brexit will be well proven - Bravo!

 

Failure to provide any factual evidence however, well, ...........

 

 

[Richard W]

35 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Only if Sturgeon becomes Prime Minister of the UK!
 

As leader of the largest party not significantly divided over the EU, I wouldn't totally rule it out.

[evadgib]

8 minutes ago, Richard W said:

As leader of the largest party not significantly divided over the EU, I wouldn't totally rule it out.

UKIP?

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

UKIP?

 

The SNP whip's UKIP's scrawny ass in just about every way possible, I am afraid.

As of July 2016, Labour has 515,000 members, the SNP 120,000, the Liberal Democrats 76,000, the Green Party (England and Wales) 55,500, UKIP 39,000 and Plaid Cymru 8,300. As of December 2013 (latest published figure) the Conservative Party had 149,800 members

[evadgib]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The SNP whip's UKIP's scrawny ass in just about every way possible, I am afraid.

As of July 2016, Labour has 515,000 members, the SNP 120,000, the Liberal Democrats 76,000, the Green Party (England and Wales) 55,500, UKIP 39,000 and Plaid Cymru 8,300. As of December 2013 (latest published figure) the Conservative Party had 149,800 members

Except number of voters at the last election.

Edited January 28, 2017 by evadgib

[RuamRudy]

 

8 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Except number of voters at the last election.

Except that the size of a party is not generally measured in the number of people who vote for it, but the number of people who join it.

[Richard W]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Except that the size of a party is not generally measured in the number of people who vote for it, but the number of people who join it.

And generally, it's the number of MPs that matters.  Evenly dispersed voters are frequently irrelevant.

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, Richard W said:

And generally, it's the number of MPs that matters.  Evenly dispersed voters are frequently irrelevant.

Certainly UKIP got more votes at the last GE than the SNP, but lucked out badly in the numbers of MPs those votes returned, but that is the effect of FPTP. I don't know what the UKIP stance was on PR when the Lib Dems tried to get support for it but the SNP were in favour. It would be ironic if UKIP had campaigned for the status quo...

[The Dark Lord]

22 hours ago, Deepinthailand said:

Seems to me that a lot of people are loosing a long standing basic human right. The right to be heard. The vote was leave clear simple unambiguous leave. Now it seems that the lesser no voters are trying to gag the yes voters taking away democracy and people's basic human rights. Luckily enough there is a strong PM in charge who will listen to those voices an leave the EU as the British people asked for.

Thank you so much for putting into words what I have been struggling to express myself. How can anyone deny what you say here is anything but correct? 

 

Well done!

[Alan Deer]

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

Becoming a colony of Germany might be acceptable to France and others, but not UK.    To say that there is no reason to stay merely demonstrates the narrow-minded ambitions of the people advocating remaining in the EU.  The biggest reason to leave is that the majority of voters said so, and that's democracy. :)

I love the way Brexiteers always assume the British are subservient to Germany

[The Dark Lord]

17 hours ago, ResandePohm said:

You need to check your facts. The result of the referendum is not legally binding. In other words it is advisory.

 

You fascist  racists that call yourselves patriotic. This leave vote is likely to lead to the break up  of Britain and which cannot legitimately call itself Great any longer. Very patriotic to sponsor the demise of a once Great country by initiating its break up.

 

You do realize that the pound has already dropped in value by more than 20% and is still falling. If you actually live in Thailand (which I doubt) watch as your British income and savings gradually diminish. If you live in the UK watch as all the prices rise and your Thailand holiday becomes unaffordable

This is why I said get a life.....

 

i live in thailand and have done for years. I am not a racist ( married to a coloured person) and I do not hide behind the keyboard spouting hate.

 

 

what gives you the right to sit there in secure anonymity calling me a racist? That is just what we have learned to expect from the "I cannot stand losing" brigade. 

 

Pathetic!

Edited January 29, 2017 by The Dark Lord

[The Dark Lord]

12 hours ago, jpinx said:

The real politics of this are far more complicated and timing will play a large part.  I've already explained about the ramifications and I'm losing the will to live with so many threads about Brexit open at the same time,   Would somebody like to condense them in to one, and close all the others?

Why not close them all?

 

it seems there are keyboard fascists on both sides and significant polarisation meaning that no matter how good or accurate the post of one side is, the other will try to demean it ending up with  personal insults and accusations that frankly if they had the balls to say it face to face would likely end up with a trip to the dentist. 

 

Moderators, I think you need to be considerably more active in banning, suspending and stopping all the hate being spat out by some on this forum either that or get someone in who will. 

 

This is is meant to be a discussion not a forum on which some of the smaller minded myopic posters can use to spout hatred.

 

 

[impulse]

On 1/27/2017 at 6:16 PM, dunroaming said:

It won't be reversed.  Just imagine though that it was and we voted to stay in.  We go back to the EU and say "Hey guys, we changed our minds and have decided that the EU is just great!.  Now I know you kicked out Cameron's agreed concessions when we said we were leaving but how about we sit down again and work out a new deal?"

 

We have burnt our bridges with the EU and they would just give us the one finger response.  We cannot go back, we would be just sidelined on everything.

 

OTOH, now that they know you're seriously considering leaving and it's not just an idle threat, they may feel inclined to negotiate in good faith if they could just have one more chance.  

 

Kind of like your boss often offers you the promotion and raise you've been asking for- right after you submit your resignation.  Or that t-shirt seller comes down on the price only as you're walking away...

Edited January 29, 2017 by impulse

[The Old Bull]

How many people remember Britain before the EU ? I would say not enough or they would not have voted to leave. There are a few annoying rules but on the whole it is a way better place. I also think those rules would have come anyway ,Canada and Australia are not as free as they used to be.

[i claudius]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

OTOH, now that they know you're seriously considering leaving and it's not just an idle threat, they may feel inclined to negotiate in good faith if they could just have one more chance.  

 

Kind of like your boss often offers you the promotion and raise you've been asking for- right after you submit your resignation.  Or that t-shirt seller comes down on the price only as you're walking away...

 

Trouble is ,  there is always someone else in the wings , to either take you on at a higher wage or a t shirt seller down the road with a better price . ,

they blew it ,now we are blowing them , the E.U had its chance .

We are leaving , and there is nothing going to stop us , so , you can go to court , go to the Lords ,huff and puff ,throw your toys out of the pram ,or run down the road waving that t shirt ,its to late .

 

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, i claudius said:

 

Trouble is ,  there is always someone else in the wings , to either take you on at a higher wage or a t shirt seller down the road with a better price . ,

they blew it ,now we are blowing them , the E.U had its chance .

We are leaving , and there is nothing going to stop us , so , you can go to court , go to the Lords ,huff and puff ,throw your toys out of the pram ,or run down the road waving that t shirt ,its to late .

 

I've got no problem with that, as long as it's done under the valid process of the political system enshrined in your founding documents.

 

The bigger question is, "Is the UK a representative democracy, or a democracy by referendum?"  The answer to that question dwarfs the Brexit issue.

 

If Parliament approves it, that bigger question goes away.   If they don't- and Brexit gets pushed through anyway- get ready for a whole bunch of referendums pushed forward by every group with a cause and an internet petition.

Edited January 29, 2017 by impulse

[i claudius]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I've got no problem with that, as long as it's done under the valid process of the political system enshrined in your founding documents.

 

The bigger question is, "Is the UK a representative democracy, or a democracy by referendum?"  The answer to that question dwarfs the Brexit issue.

 

If Parliament approves it, that bigger question goes away.   If they don't- and Brexit gets pushed through anyway- get ready for a whole bunch of referendums pushed forward by every group with a cause and an internet petition.

It was done fairly and legally , just like elections , the majority won ,end of , if there is an election and a new govt takes over and wants another referendum ,no problem ,

[harrry]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I've got no problem with that, as long as it's done under the valid process of the political system enshrined in your founding documents.

 

The bigger question is, "Is the UK a representative democracy, or a democracy by referendum?"  The answer to that question dwarfs the Brexit issue.

 

If Parliament approves it, that bigger question goes away.   If they don't- and Brexit gets pushed through anyway- get ready for a whole bunch of referendums pushed forward by every group with a cause and an internet petition.

I rhink a more important question came out in the court case.  It is who makes UK law.....and the High Court said it was the EU.  Not something for a country to be proud of and one I am sure not many of those who supported the Common Market expected.

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, i claudius said:

It was done fairly and legally , just like elections , the majority won ,end of , if there is an election and a new govt takes over and wants another referendum ,no problem ,

 

Given that the vote to enter the EU required a 2/3 majority and the recent vote to leave only won by one or 2 percent, do you see any advantage inherent in one side or the other? 

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Given that the vote to enter the EU required a 2/3 majority and the recent vote to leave only won by one or 2 percent, do you see any advantage inherent in one side or the other? 

It was actually nearly 4 percent.

[jpinx]

30 minutes ago, harrry said:

I rhink a more important question came out in the court case.  It is who makes UK law.....and the High Court said it was the EU.  Not something for a country to be proud of and one I am sure not many of those who supported the Common Market expected.

Who makes UK law is one of the reasons people are voting to leave the EU.  Westminster is subservient to brussels in almost everything.

 

26 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Given that the vote to enter the EU required a 2/3 majority and the recent vote to leave only won by one or 2 percent, do you see any advantage inherent in one side or the other? 

The question of the margin has been done to death.  Also - the question of why the referendum was not run along constituency lines -- the margin would have been much bigger.  See previous posts on this aspect.