Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
JEBUS_LIVES said:
Legal action today around UK decision to leave the EU. Hearing is to be live streamed from the court of appeal today. Starts at 10am.

Live stream link:
m.youtube.com

Court of Appeal - Civil Division - Court 71

Watch live and recorded cases from Court 71
m.youtube.com m.youtube.com

Highly doubt it will be successful, but it should be interesting hearing the government QC arguments regarding the decision to trigger Article50.
Click to expand...
This challenge was not upheld. The reasoning being:

In a binding referendum the result would be subject to the rules under the Representation of the People Act, which, due to the illegality of the Leave Campagin and the ongoing criminal prosecutions, would have made it void.

But as it is an advisory referendum, the law doesn't apply. Judge also noted that as a result of the manifesto pledge triggered by the GE, it effectively changed the status.

PM made the decision on the basis that the referendum was lawful and had the legal authority to do so by the 2015 Act, but...

'on reasonableness, having regards to what she knows now, it is unreasonable for PM to continue on the basis that the referendum was lawful and expressed the will of the people. That's why we don't need to show right to void result. Sufficient doubt as to legtimacy of referendum'
 
Last edited:
JEBUS_LIVES said:
This challenge was not upheld. The reasoning being:

In a binding referendum the result would be subject to the rules under the Representation of the People Act, which, due to the illegality of the Leave Campagin and the ongoing criminal prosecutions, would have made it void.

But as it is an advisory referendum, the law doesn't apply. Judge also noted that as a result of the manifesto pledge triggered by the GE, it effectively changed the status.

PM made the decision on the basis that the referendum was lawful and had the legal authority to do so by the 2015 Act, but...

'on reasonableness, having regards to what she knows now, it is unreasonable for PM to continue on the basis that the referendum was lawful and expressed the will of the people. That's why we don't need to show right to void result. Sufficient doubt as to legtimacy of referendum'
Click to expand...
So does this judgement go anywhere?
 
Ultimately, whilst I know there are other (small minority socialist (bewildering since the tories are in control)) reasons for poeple to vote leave, ultimately the main thrust has come from the nationalist/neocon con artistry. Sickening really. I just hope Parliament comes to its senses before more jobs are lost.
 
Can somebody please explain something to an old confused Brexit voter. Forgive me but I'm a bit thick and have difficulty understanding things.

Theresa May has come up with a deal. From what I can see the deal includes us staying in the customs union for a further 2 years whilst both sides continue to negotiate on the future relationship, mainly relating to trade deals and movement of nationals between UK and the EC. Any deal agreed having to be ratified by Parliament. To safeguard the Good Friday peace agreement, a backstop has been put in place to prevent any hard border in Ireland, which involves Northern Ireland being in a single customs union with the EC if no agreement is reached within 18 months. Assuming Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, that effectively ties the whole of the UK into the same deal. Furthermore, both parties need to agree to the cessation of the customs union. In other words, we are tied to it indefinitely.

As a Brexit voter that does not sit comfortably with me, as the single market/customs union and complete freedom of movement were two of the areas that I felt needed tweeking. If Parliament voted for it I would have to accept it, but I would feel as though the Brexit I voted for had not been delivered. However if the alternative was leaving with no deal at all, then I certainly believe a soft Brexit is the better of the two evils.

I can fully understand why the hard Brexit supporters within the Conservative Party voted against the deal. What I don't understand, and where I need some help from you guys, is why the whole of the opposition voted it down too. Given that it basically delivered what they want as regards freedom of movement and single market, plus ensuring that we don't end up in a no deal situation, I thought they would have jumped at the opportunity for such a soft Brexit.
 
Barnfred 55 said:
Can somebody please explain something to an old confused Brexit voter. Forgive me but I'm a bit thick and have difficulty understanding things.

Theresa May has come up with a deal. From what I can see the deal includes us staying in the customs union for a further 2 years whilst both sides continue to negotiate on the future relationship, mainly relating to trade deals and movement of nationals between UK and the EC. Any deal agreed having to be ratified by Parliament. To safeguard the Good Friday peace agreement, a backstop has been put in place to prevent any hard border in Ireland, which involves Northern Ireland being in a single customs union with the EC if no agreement is reached within 18 months. Assuming Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, that effectively ties the whole of the UK into the same deal. Furthermore, both parties need to agree to the cessation of the customs union. In other words, we are tied to it indefinitely.

As a Brexit voter that does not sit comfortably with me, as the single market/customs union and complete freedom of movement were two of the areas that I felt needed tweeking. If Parliament voted for it I would have to accept it, but I would feel as though the Brexit I voted for had not been delivered. However if the alternative was leaving with no deal at all, then I certainly believe a soft Brexit is the better of the two evils.

I can fully understand why the hard Brexit supporters within the Conservative Party voted against the deal. What I don't understand, and where I need some help from you guys, is why the whole of the opposition voted it down too. Given that it basically delivered what they want as regards freedom of movement and single market, plus ensuring that we don't end up in a no deal situation, I thought they would have jumped at the opportunity for such a soft Brexit.
Click to expand...

What 'tweaking' did they need that couldn't be done from within the EU? I'd love you to elaborate. Remember the UK chose not to implement EU rules that state 'migrants must prove that they are either working, actively seeking work or self-sufficient.' Other EU countries do this.

May's deal doesn't involve the UK being tied to the single market, only NI. That is the whole crux of the backstop - for it to apply to NI so custom checks happen in the channel, not on land. It was the UK calling for a customs union with an arrangement for unilateral withdrawal, in place of a backstop.

When you talk of the brexit you voted for not being delivered it highlights a key problem. May's deal will deliver what some voted for. A no-deal will deliver what others voted for. There's no way to deliver a brexit that will keep all voters happy. This is because a vote to leave was an abstract. A vote on the unknown, and in many ways, a vote for a lie.

If by the opposition, you mean remainers, it absolutely doesn't deliver what they want. Freedom of movement is curtailed under May's deal. It's a softer brexit but not soft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top