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

[impulse]

25 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

It was actually nearly 4 percent.

 

The difference was almost 4%, meaning if 2% of the voters had gone the other way, it would have been even.  And if any "stayers" had shown up who didn't bother to vote because they figured it was non-binding because a parliamentary vote is required under British law, the results could have been very different- it was that close.

 

As I've been repeating, stay or leave.  I don't care.  No dog in that fight.  But the process followed on this one has a stench to it- as if someone pulled a fast one.  Decisions this important shouldn't be left to something as malleable and transient as public opinion on a given day.  That's the theory behind a representative democracy.  

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The difference was almost 4%, meaning if 2% of the voters had gone the other way, it would have been even.  And if any "stayers" had shown up who didn't bother to vote because they figured it was non-binding because a parliamentary vote is required under British law, the results could have been very different- it was that close.

 

As I've been repeating, stay or leave.  I don't care.  No dog in that fight.  But the process followed on this one has a stench to it- as if someone pulled a fast one.  Decisions this important shouldn't be left to something as malleable and transient as public opinion on a given day.  That's the theory behind a representative democracy.  

POTUS was elected on a "given day" - with results that appear to be being queried by all sides.  Is *that* the model for a representative democracy?  What we're talking about in here is the various ways the Brexit process can be disrupted and possibly derailed, against the wishes of the majority of the voters. People who did not vote don't count.  In spite of the referendum not being run per constituency, the vote was clearly for Brexit.  If it *had* been per constituency the result would have been much clearer in favour of Brexit. 

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, The Old Bull said:

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.

Exactly. The EU imposed a great deal of legislation on the UK and took the blame for it. It would be naive to believe that left to their own devices the UK government would have had the courage to introduce all of that same legislation.

One of the main problems is that a large percentage of the population have no idea how they have benefited from the changes made by the EU.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Exactly. The EU imposed a great deal of legislation on the UK and took the blame for it. It would be naive to believe that left to their own devices the UK government would have had the courage to introduce all of that same legislation.

One of the main problems is that a large percentage of the population have no idea how they have benefited from the changes made by the EU.

Did you read the link I posted earlier, about metrification?  It would appear not.

[harrry]

With the margin being a bit over the half it shows that people are not too concerned either way.  In which case it is quite OK to have the Politicians act on it.  If the vote had been say 30% for I would say it would be wrong for the politicians to act as obviously there is strong feeling.

[sandyf]

42 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Did you read the link I posted earlier, about metrification?  It would appear not.

Apologies, appears to have gone over your head again.

[JAG]

2 hours 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 ,

 

Yes, yes, yes! To reinforce that point, the referendum was a manifesto commitment of the current government, and therefore each MP was, in part, elected because of his or her stance on the referendum. More MPs were returned to parliament who agreed with the referendum than those who didn't. That is why they formed the government, and duly held a referendum. Therefore this referendum has legitimacy as a democratic instrument.

 

If a general election results in a new government which has a mandate (from its manifesto) to rerun the referendum, or ignore and reverse its decision, then fair enough. At the moment it is the expressed wish of the British electorate. It was held as a result of a manifesto commitment. The UK is a representative democracy. Its representatives, MPs, chose to hold a referendum on the subject. and the result was that the UK should leave, like it or not.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by JAG

[7by7]

2 hours 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.

 In which court case did any judgement say that the EU makes UK law?

 

If you are referring to the recent case brought by Gina Miller et al, the judgement of the Supreme Court was that the UK Parliament makes UK law!

[Khun Han]

21 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Apologies, appears to have gone over your head again.

 

Your constant attempts to be condescending with your debating opponents are inane Sandy. You are only impressing the arrogant wing of the forum's remain camp, nobody else. Welcome to my ignore room.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 In which court case did any judgement say that the EU makes UK law?

 

If you are referring to the recent case brought by Gina Miller et al, the judgement of the Supreme Court was that the UK Parliament makes UK law!

There was mention of how EU law automatically flows into UK law without interference by UK MP's.  This is the basis of how the UK is in the EU

[jpinx]

28 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Apologies, appears to have gone over your head again.

Diverting  and deflecting does not answer the question.  Did you read the link I posted or not?  It is highly relevant to what you are attempting to claim are the benefits of being in the EU, when in fact the opposite has more generally been the case. 

It's a shame the exchange has become less than friendly -- you used to be an interesting interlocutor.

Edited January 29, 2017 by jpinx

[harrry]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 In which court case did any judgement say that the EU makes UK law?

 

If you are referring to the recent case brought by Gina Miller et al, the judgement of the Supreme Court was that the UK Parliament makes UK law!

Quote

61. In one sense, of course, it can be said that the 1972 Act is the source of EU law, in that, without that Act, EU law would have no domestic status. But in a more fundamental sense and, we consider, a more realistic sense, where EU law applies in the United Kingdom, it is the EU institutions which are the relevant source of that law. The legislative institutions of the EU can create or abrogate rules of law which will then apply domestically, without the specific sanction of any UK institution. It is true that the UK government and UK-elected members of the European Parliament participate in the EU legislative processes and can influence their outcome, but that does not diminish the point. Further, in the many areas of EU competence which are subject to majority decision, the approval of the United Kingdom is not required for its legislation to take effect domestically. It is also true that EU law enjoys its automatic and overriding effect only by virtue of the 1972 Act, and thus only while it remains in force. That point simply reflects the fact that Parliament was and remains sovereign: so, no new source of law could come into existence without Parliamentary sanction - and without being susceptible to being abrogated by Parliament. However, that in no way undermines our view that it is unrealistic to deny that, so long as that Act remains in force, the EU Treaties, EU legislation and the interpretations placed on these instruments by the Court of Justice are direct sources of UK law.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

[7by7]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Did you read the link I posted earlier, about metrification?  It would appear not.

Like decimalisation, metrication in the UK was inevitable; but it's been a long time coming.

 

A House of Commons Select Committee recommended

• immediate authorising of metric units for all purposes
• that the metric system becomes compulsory after 2 years
• that the metric system be taught in elementary schools.

Care to guess when? I'll tell you; 1895! (Source)

 

Like decimalisation, the UK public has resisted it; but like decimalisation has gradually been getting used to it.  Ask anyone under 30 how tall they are or what they weigh and they'll answer in metres and kilogrammes.

 

The difficulty for, and therefore resistance from, us oldies is in no small part due to the UK government providing only negligible advice and information to help us make the change; unlike decimalisation where copious amounts were provided.

 

Yes, joining the EEC did mean the UK agreeing to adopt the metric system; but over the years since 1973 the EEC at first then the EU granted many concession so that the UK can delay adopting it in full; beer and milk still sold in pints; road signs still in miles for example.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Like decimalisation, metrication in the UK was inevitable; but it's been a long time coming.

 

A House of Commons Select Committee recommended

• immediate authorising of metric units for all purposes
• that the metric system becomes compulsory after 2 years
• that the metric system be taught in elementary schools.

Care to guess when? I'll tell you; 1895! (Source)

 

Like decimalisation, the UK public has resisted it; but like decimalisation has gradually been getting used to it.  Ask anyone under 30 how tall they are or what they weigh and they'll answer in metres and kilogrammes.

 

The difficulty for, and therefore resistance from, us oldies is in no small part due to the UK government providing only negligible advice and information to help us make the change; unlike decimalisation where copious amounts were provided.

 

Yes, joining the EEC did mean the UK agreeing to adopt the metric system; but over the years since 1973 the EEC at first then the EU granted many concession so that the UK can delay adopting it in full; beer and milk still sold in pints; road signs still in miles for example.

It's nice to see you agree that is was a huge hassle, and has left us with a dual system for kids to learn, traders to deal with, etc, etc

[7by7]

34 minutes ago, jpinx said:

There was mention of how EU law automatically flows into UK law without interference by UK MP's.  This is the basis of how the UK is in the EU

 

25 minutes ago, harrry said:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

Quote

61. In one sense, of course, it can be said that the 1972 Act is the source of EU law, in that, without that Act, EU law would have no domestic status. But in a more fundamental sense and, we consider, a more realistic sense, where EU law applies in the United Kingdom, it is the EU institutions which are the relevant source of that law. The legislative institutions of the EU can create or abrogate rules of law which will then apply domestically, without the specific sanction of any UK institution. It is true that the UK government and UK-elected members of the European Parliament participate in the EU legislative processes and can influence their outcome, but that does not diminish the point. Further, in the many areas of EU competence which are subject to majority decision, the approval of the United Kingdom is not required for its legislation to take effect domestically. It is also true that EU law enjoys its automatic and overriding effect only by virtue of the 1972 Act, and thus only while it remains in force. That point simply reflects the fact that Parliament was and remains sovereign: so, no new source of law could come into existence without Parliamentary sanction - and without being susceptible to being abrogated by Parliament. However, that in no way undermines our view that it is unrealistic to deny that, so long as that Act remains in force, the EU Treaties, EU legislation and the interpretations placed on these instruments by the Court of Justice are direct sources of UK law.

 

Of course, the last part does say "so long as that Act remains in force, the EU Treaties, EU legislation and the interpretations placed on these instruments by the Court of Justice are direct sources of UK law."

 

Sources of UK law; to become UK law it still has to be approved by Parliament.

[harrry]

Just now, 7by7 said:

 

 

Of course, the last part does say "so long as that Act remains in force, the EU Treaties, EU legislation and the interpretations placed on these instruments by the Court of Justice are direct sources of UK law."

 

Sources of UK law; to become UK law it still has to be approved by Parliament.

No.....at present it has to be specificaly rejected by Parliament to stop it  applying.

 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

It's nice to see you agree that is was a huge hassle, and has left us with a dual system for kids to learn, traders to deal with, etc, etc

 

I agree that it has been a hassle; for some, mainly older people. Due mainly to the negligible information provided by the government during the switch over.

 

But I remember being taught using the metric system, and SI units, at school; and I left in 1972!

 

Do you agree that the UK adopting the metric system was inevitable; even if we had never joined the EU?

[harrry]

the metric system has little weight....measured in either stones or kilograms on wwhether brexit can be reversed which is the form topic.

It seems we have got several furlongs off course.

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Sources of UK law; to become UK law it still has to be approved by Parliament

 

6 minutes ago, harrry said:

No.....at present it has to be specificaly rejected by Parliament to stop it  applying.

 But parliament can reject it.

 

Of course, all of this was in The European Communities Act, 1972 and accepted by the British people in the 1975 referendum.

 

All of this has been argued in other topics, and none of this has anything to do with this topics OP!

[Richard W]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The difficulty for, and therefore resistance from, us oldies is in no small part due to the UK government providing only negligible advice and information to help us make the change; unlike decimalisation where copious amounts were provided.

The government also brought in a rather high rate of inflation, to help make conversion to old money rather pointless.

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I agree that it has been a hassle; for some, mainly older people. Due mainly to the negligible information provided by the government during the switch over.

 

But I remember being taught using the metric system, and SI units, at school; and I left in 1972!

 

Do you agree that the UK adopting the metric system was inevitable; even if we had never joined the EU?

If's and And's are pots and pans :)

The metric system is important to the French, who claim it as their own, but it has many faults and possibilities of error..  It's also very confusing 1000 or 10.00 or 1,00  because of different uses of commas and fullstops across europe.  also the naming system is positively diabolical.  My grandson much prefers nice simple feet and inches. 

Edited January 29, 2017 by jpinx

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, harrry said:

the metric system has little weight....measured in either stones or kilograms on wwhether brexit can be reversed which is the form topic.

It seems we have got several furlongs off course.

Indeed - we have - by a league or two, but it has given us a yardstick to work with

Whether the court action will produce a judgement from the ECJ before Art50 is invoked is the crucial question now --  no matter which way the judgement goes.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

There was mention of how EU law automatically flows into UK law without interference by UK MP's.  This is the basis of how the UK is in the EU

 

EU legal instruments come in different flavours.

Some have immediate effect in member states regardless of any member state legal implementation

Some need cooperation by the memer states and need the member states to implement the instrument in national law

 

[7by7]

47 minutes ago, jpinx said:

<snip>

Whether the court action will produce a judgement from the ECJ before Art50 is invoked is the crucial question now --  no matter which way the judgement goes.

Crucial? Not as far as the UK triggering Article 50 is concerned..

 

Whenever the final judgement in this case is reached and whatever that judgement is; the UK government will invoke Article 50 as soon as it has parliamentary approval by way of an Act.

 

Following the UK Supreme Court judgement in Millers case, an unnecessary waste of time and public money in my opinion, a Bill enabling the government to trigger Article 50 has already been laid before Parliament. The only people who can delay that Bill, and therefore delay the triggering of Article 50, are MPs and members of the House of Lords

 

But as Labour have said that they will support the Bill it will happen; despite the threatened delaying tactics of certain MPs from all parties.

 

The outcome of this case in the Irish courts will not change that.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

I agree that it has been a hassle; for some, mainly older people. Due mainly to the negligible information provided by the government during the switch over.

 

But I remember being taught using the metric system, and SI units, at school; and I left in 1972!

 

Do you agree that the UK adopting the metric system was inevitable; even if we had never joined the EU?

 

slowly but surely it will happen,

like when the UK went metric, inch by inch

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

If's and And's are pots and pans :) 

So you wont answer, then. Since the adoption of the metric system was first recommended by the British Parliament in 1895, and it's use has gradually crept into British weights and measures ever since; it's full, official adoption was inevitable.

 

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

The metric system is important to the French, who claim it as their own, but it has many faults and possibilities of error..  It's also very confusing 1000 or 10.00 or 1,00  because of different uses of commas and fullstops across europe.  also the naming system is positively diabolical. 

If in doubt; blame the French!

 

It's important to everyone, well nearly every one. Only three countries have not officially adopted it; Liberia, Myanmar and the USA. But even they have to use it in international trade; because everyone else does.

 

Different numerical systems can be confusing; we need a SI for that too. Dates as well; to me today is 29/1/17, to an American it's 1/29/17.

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

also the naming system is positively diabolical

In what way? As with any system, one simply has to learn the names, e.g. millimetres, centimetres, metres etc., a task any Thai schoolchild has mastered.

 

How are these names and their relationship to each unit more confusing than drachm, scruple, minim, chaldron, quarter, rod, pole, perch etc.?

 

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

My grandson much prefers nice simple feet and inches. 

How old is your grandson? Where does he go to school?

 

Schools in the UK switched to SI units in maths and science back in the late 1960's, when I was at school. I must say that I found multiplying 3.5 metres by 4.5 metres much easier than multiplying 11 feet 5 and 3/4 inches by 14 feet 9 inches!  

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Crucial? Not as far as the UK triggering Article 50 is concerned..

 

Whenever the final judgement in this case is reached and whatever that judgement is; the UK government will invoke Article 50 as soon as it has parliamentary approval by way of an Act.

 

Following the UK Supreme Court judgement in Millers case, an unnecessary waste of time and public money in my opinion, a Bill enabling the government to trigger Article 50 has already been laid before Parliament. The only people who can delay that Bill, and therefore delay the triggering of Article 50, are MPs and members of the House of Lords

 

But as Labour have said that they will support the Bill it will happen; despite the threatened delaying tactics of certain MPs from all parties.

 

The outcome of this case in the Irish courts will not change that.

I agree with your prognosis, but this is politics and there's always some unexpected turns.  The basic problem that I see about the status of Art50, once invoked, is that if it is irrevocable, the EU can twiddle it's thumbs for 2 years and then present UK with a deal that is only marginally better than the "no deal" option, and UK will have a bit of a Hobson's Choice situation.   If - however - the ECJ says that Art50 *is* reversible, then the UK can not be boxed in in that way. 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I agree with your prognosis, but this is politics and there's always some unexpected turns.  The basic problem that I see about the status of Art50, once invoked, is that if it is irrevocable, the EU can twiddle it's thumbs for 2 years and then present UK with a deal that is only marginally better than the "no deal" option, and UK will have a bit of a Hobson's Choice situation.   If - however - the ECJ says that Art50 *is* reversible, then the UK can not be boxed in in that way. 

 

You may have a point; but; as far as I am aware, everyone currently believes Article 50, once triggered, to be irrevocable.

 

If this case changes that, then by your argument that can only benefit the UK's negotiating position.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You may have a point; but; as far as I am aware, everyone currently believes Article 50, once triggered, to be irrevocable.

 

If this case changes that, then by your argument that can only benefit the UK's negotiating position.

Everyone -- except the guy who wrote it

[7by7]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Everyone -- except the guy who wrote it

Good point, well made; but is his interpretation law?

 

That is what this case will decide.