24-01-2017, 04:33 PM
13
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
HiI have a different view, a quote that I agree with.
"Buried in the judgement is what some informed people here at court this morning took as a criticism – albeit in legal language – of former prime minister David Cameron.
The justices explicitly say that when previous big issues were put to the people – such as the proposal to change our voting system in 2011 – ministers made sure that the referendum legislation included a clause that set out what the government would do following the result.
The 2015 European Union Referendum Act contained no such proposal – and, the justices say, ministers couldn’t agree in public statements about whether the result was advisory or decisive.
The subtext is clear: the justices are saying that the former PM could have signed off a referendum that was a lot clearer. During the hearings one of the barristers, Manjit Gill QC, put it another way.
We’re only here, he said, because nobody in government and Parliament thought there would be a vote to leave."
The judges had to rule on a point of law, which they did.
If Cameron had got the law right, there would have been no hearing.
Corbyn has said he will not oppose Brexit, but that basically it has to be on his terms, he is seeking amendments.
Nicola is fuming because she has been sidelined by the judgement, as has Northern Ireland and Wales.
24-01-2017, 04:47 PM
14
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiI have a different view, a quote that I agree with.
"Buried in the judgement is what some informed people here at court this morning took as a criticism – albeit in legal language – of former prime minister David Cameron.
The justices explicitly say that when previous big issues were put to the people – such as the proposal to change our voting system in 2011 – ministers made sure that the referendum legislation included a clause that set out what the government would do following the result.
The 2015 European Union Referendum Act contained no such proposal – and, the justices say, ministers couldn’t agree in public statements about whether the result was advisory or decisive.
The subtext is clear: the justices are saying that the former PM could have signed off a referendum that was a lot clearer. During the hearings one of the barristers, Manjit Gill QC, put it another way.
We’re only here, he said, because nobody in government and Parliament thought there would be a vote to leave."
The judges had to rule on a point of law, which they did.
If Cameron had got the law right, there would have been no hearing.
Corbyn has said he will not oppose Brexit, but that basically it has to be on his terms, he is seeking amendments.
Nicola is fuming because she has been sidelined by the judgement, as has Northern Ireland and Wales.
24-01-2017, 04:50 PM
15
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
This Gina Miller act of trying to prevent a democratic decision taking place has actually failed. All she has achieved is ensuring that a lot of money has been spent unnecessarily in order for her to make her political point.I hope she's proud of herself.
I am sure that Brexit will go ahead, although doing so will inevitably cost the country more time and more money. In addition, all of this opposition to a democratically determined decision has served to stir up hatred between people on both sides. Is that going to help any of us?
When this mess is finally sorted out, and we have gained our independence, I'd like to see a general election (if not held beforehand) with a clear win for the Conservatives and, hopefully, UKIP. Both parties, I think, agree on the same thing and MPs opposing Brexit will, hopefully, reap the reward of going against the wishes of the majority of their constituents.
I believe that, after that, the next steps should be:
- a law to make future appointments to the judiciary a democratic decision by election, as the 'old boys club' method has been shown not to work;
- a limited period of office for elected judges (at all levels) of, say, four years or less;
- dissolution of the House of Lords in its present form, to be replaced by a democratically elected second house;
- reduction of the number of 'Senators/Lords' to about 100.
- reduction of the number of MPs in the Commons to about 400.
(These latter two 'motions' are, in my mind, necessary because the number of our politicians, especially the Lords, are far in excess of the equivalent numbers in America, a nation with about five times the population of this country.)
24-01-2017, 04:55 PM
16
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
What are you all moaning about? You got what you wanted power back in the hands of the British Judiciary and Parliament isn't that what you all wanted? Of course the Government can always appeal to the European Court of Justice.** laughing so hard at my own joke it actually hurts
24-01-2017, 05:05 PM
17
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
HiThe thing is JBR, that we are very fortunate to be able to live in a Country where anyone can take the Government to Court.
It is another layer of protection, which from time to time is needed to protect us from the excesses of our Politicians.
24-01-2017, 05:06 PM
18
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
Originally Posted by Baxter8
->
What are you all moaning about? You got what you wanted power back in the hands of the British Judiciary and Parliament isn't that what you all wanted? Of course the Government can always appeal to the European Court of Justice.** laughing so hard at my own joke it actually hurts
As I see it the judges were just doing their job and in spite of those poor losers who tried to prevent the will of the majority of voters in the referendum being adhered to we are one step closer to triggering article 50 in March .
Climbing out of a cesspit was never going to be easy but we are on our way
24-01-2017, 05:07 PM
19
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
Originally Posted by Meg
->
On the contrary I am not moaning As I see it the judges were just doing their job and in spite of those poor losers who tried to prevent the will of the majority of voters in the referendum being adhered to we are one step closer to trigering article 50 in March .
Climing out of a cesspit was never going to be easy but we are on our way
Cesspit, indeed.
24-01-2017, 05:09 PM
20
Re: Supreme Court Brexit Ruling: Government Must Consult MPs Over Article 50
Originally Posted by Twink55
->
I don't think Theresa May was in favour of Brexit, but she recognized it was a democratic vote of the people, so good for her! All those who cared about this decision, did vote, and the majority wanted to leave.People who have been trying to stop Article 50, to satisfy their own needs, are making the British government look as though they can't rule this country, and if the majority of MPs vote against A50, they will be demonstrating, to the rest of the world, that this is not a democratic country that is run by the peoples wishes, via voting.
Whether we stay in or leave the EU, if this country now fails there will be only one group of people to blame......
those who opposed the result of a democratic vote
|
|
