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.
So does this judgement go anywhere?
Sorry I've been out for the evening. Permission to Appeal had been refused. The ruling will mean that political policy can now be passed through parliament without parliamentary approval or judicial review.

I was half following the live stream earlier and missed the ruling, so I may not be completely accurate, I'll have to wait for the written judgement, but effectively the principle argued is about the decision to enact Article 50 when there has been illegality around the referendum. Had it been a binding referendum it would not have stood. The rule of law has stood, but maybe not the spirit. It wasn't helped by a suspension of the broadcast during the claimant summary.

There was a bizarre moment in which the QC for the PM effectively said 'yes we accept that it is not a good decision and we accept that there was corruption and illegality in a number of areas for Leave Vote, but the PM is standing by the decision' :Blink:

A cynic might say that by knowingly ignoring the illegality and proceeding with A50, it allowed the PM to remove UK citizens rights regarding free movement, along with that of the other EU countries.
 
Sorry I've been out for the evening. Permission to Appeal had been refused. The ruling will mean that political policy can now be passed through parliament without parliamentary approval or judicial review.

I was half following the live stream earlier and missed the ruling, so I may not be completely accurate, I'll have to wait for the written judgement, but effectively the principle argued is about the decision to enact Article 50 when there has been illegality around the referendum. Had it been a binding referendum it would not have stood. The rule of law has stood, but maybe not the spirit. It wasn't helped by a suspension of the broadcast during the claimant summary.

There was a bizarre moment in which the QC for the PM effectively said 'yes we accept that it is not a good decision and we accept that there was corruption and illegality in a number of areas for Leave Vote, but the PM is standing by the decision' :Blink:

A cynic might say that by knowingly ignoring the illegality and proceeding with A50, it allowed the PM to remove UK citizens rights regarding free movement, along with that of the other EU countries.
No problem, thanks for the clear answer. Out of interest what "usually" happens when electoral law has been broken or corruption demonstrated? I suppose it depends on the extent and the specific case?
 
No problem, thanks for the clear answer. Out of interest what "usually" happens when electoral law has been broken or corruption demonstrated? I suppose it depends on the extent and the specific case?
The electoral commission have a range of sanctions available to them and if it's deemed a serious but they're a relatively new organisation. Other charges will vary across different but of legislation and areas of law: data, fraud etc.
 
Seems like you can cheat and lie as much as you want when it's an opinion poll.
It's a slightly perverse finding as it follows that:

Because it wasn't a binding referendum, which would have most definitely been overturned, it is not subject to the law in the same manner. It's only advisory, so knowing that it was subject to illegal activity and misinformation - which is accepted by the government position - you shouldn't treat it as binding. However, the PM, by enacting Article 50 and through GE pledges, is treating it as binding.

So it isn't subject to the law, but probably should be as it's being treated as binding, but the PM doesn't have to go through with it and knowing what she does about it now really should declared it unsafe.
 
It's a slightly perverse finding as it follows that:

Because it wasn't a binding referendum, which would have most definitely been overturned, it is not subject to the law in the same manner. It's only advisory, so knowing that it was subject to illegal activity and misinformation - which is accepted by the government position - you shouldn't treat it as binding. However, the PM, by enacting Article 50 and through GE pledges, is treating it as binding.

So it isn't subject to the law, but probably should be as it's being treated as binding, but the PM doesn't have to go through with it and knowing what she does about it now really should declared it unsafe.
Did they mention the bus? Asking for a friend.
@Joey66
 
Excellent, Remainers celebrate that an insurance company moves £9Bn from its near £300bn assets into the Eu shocker.....

No celebration. No jubilation. This will affect remainers as much as leavers.

But we did warn this would happen. For remainers, it's a deadly car crash happening in slow motion. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry.
 
.
No celebration. No jubilation. This will affect remainers as much as leavers.

But we did warn this would happen. For remainers, it's a deadly car crash happening in slow motion. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry.

It is no different from any company having a small presence in another country/territory/political union, yet Remainers seem to treat it as some form of Armageddon.......
 
.


It is no different from any company having a small presence in another country/territory/political union, yet Remainers seem to treat it as some form of Armageddon.......

Do you not see everything adding up, pete? Businesses leaving. Money leaving. The cumulative affect will be felt and felt hardest at the lowest levels.

No one said armageddon, but we will Al be significantly worse off over the next few decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

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

🛒 Visit Shop

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