Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
Originally Posted by
Rainmaker
->
Except there are grey areas. Since we don't have a written constitution, written down in, shall we say Black and white. it is open to interpretation, There is nothing which defines clearly and concisely who gets to trigger article 50, just that it has to be done..
The Judges have made the ruling based on their own experience and preferences, Therefore as I said previously what decides things is your/their own judgement which may or may not agree with your neighbour's.
Its more to do with the constitution or lack of a written on which is the problem not the law.
So how can we use the word "Democracy" when discussing how this country is run?
Cameron, a democratically elected prime minister, allowed a referendum, which resulted in a democratic vote to leave the EU. What is the point of having a referendum if the government cannot act on it's result?
If it is just that the new PM cannot act on it, then that means she would not have the ability that Cameron had, so there should have been a general election to establish that she was an democratically elected leader of the party the people had voted for..... and Cameron should have had to stay till that had been decided. If Corbyn had become PM would he have been able to use Article 50?
What you are saying is that, either Cameron did not have the authority to use Article 50, or Mrs May didn't because she had not been democratically elected as leader by the public. Surely this means that a group of judges, who were not democratically elected ( and may have personal reasons to try and change the referendum vote) have the power to overrule decisions made by the government, which was democratically elected, and the people of this country.
Does that sound like a democratic country to you?
To me it sounds like a way of making sure that we remain in the EU, and that is not what the democratic referendum vote said the people wanted!
The judges are saying that the procedures for this referendum's result were not done correctly, so the British people want to know what was done wrong, and by who. We would also like to know why 3 judges saw it differently