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.
Old Blue 2 said:
Hey, why not 12+???

My grandson has a total 100% grasp of national & international affairs. NOT!!!
Click to expand...

Sixteen year olds can join the army, pay income tax and are now often better educated than their elders.

I'm not suggesting we have a re-referendum and let them in, but we should be letting these people vote. It also gives parliament and government more legitimacy over their lives.
 
LouReedwalkonthewildside said:
I voted remain mate, and I know it's law, but what happens if everything the Government proposes is slapped down by Parliament at every turn, and no consensus can be reached on triggering article 50, where does it end?
Click to expand...

Your original post said that this ruling has "turned" it into a farce.

Nothing has changed here, the law is being upheld. These were the conditions that were in place before the referendum. It has been a farce since day 1 but this ruling is a millions miles away from that.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Very interesting, what you quoted from Twitter, Esk.

If I may quote a certain part of it:
"...The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent on the question of what happens to EU rights in domestic law if the Crown seeks to take action on the international plane to undo them. Either the Act reserves power to do that, including by giving notice under Article 50, or it does not. In our view, it clearly does not..."

Now the above may be legal dynamite. Legal dynamite for the Judges, I might add.

For the following reasons (and I'm not being flippant when I put this together):
1. Direct reference is made to undoing rights if the Crown seeks to take action on the matter (i.e. overturn what has previously been enacted by Parliament via an Act of Parliament).
2. Three thing happen/can happen to an Act of Parliament: 1. it is enacted when finally passed; 2. it is changed by subsequent amending Regulations; and 3. it is repealed.
3. Now I come to the crux of the matter. This sentence: "Either the Act reserves power to do that, including by giving notice under Article 50, or it does not." And the crux is this: if Article 50 is enshrined in a present, ongoing, Act of Parliament, then it is for the Government of the day to determine if that legal enshrinement should be acted upon. While that Act is current, it is for the Government to decide whether to act on it, or not (NOT Judges).
4. And this is where I see the legal problem. What has been said, on the Judges's say-so, is that the Government does not have the legal clout or authority to go along the road of implementing Article 50, which Article is current and legal. In saying "In our view, it clearly does not." they are saying that Article 50 cannot be invoked to undo EU rights in domestic law by taking action on the international plane (to withdraw from the EU, in other words).
5. By what I have explained in '4' above, Judges are interfering directly with the operations of the State. Nothing less. They may seek to claim that they are simply making a legal ruling on the interpretation of the wording of an Act of Parliament. However, it is one thing to rule on the wording of an Act, it is another thing altogether to interfere with the intent.
6. I haven't read the full decision of the Judges (but am interested in doing so), but I believe they would have to show that a part or parts of the Act they have examined are considered to be ultra vires for their decision to carry legal weight. It is only by saying that what is presently contained in the relevant legislation has gone beyond what is legally permissible, that their judgement today will carry the day in a subsequent appeal to a higher court.

It's gonna be a very interesting next few months, either way.

Apologies, also, for the long post.
Click to expand...
What the judges concluded was simple - the Govt can't alter the rights of UK citizens by overturning the 1972 act without going through the House. They're not inferring with anything, they're merely giving clarity on what the constitutional process should be. May acting unilaterally without the backing of the House isn't the correct process. It never was, and trying to wing it off the back of the referendum under the guise of the 'will of the people' was clearly incorrect.
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
The Leave campaign itself told a load of whoppers and then ran away from them and scattered the following day
Click to expand...

The Remain campaign also told a load of whoppers...

And once midnight chimed on 22nd June, both campaigns no longer had a remit to do anything. What happened next was that the Government was to act on the outcome. THE CAMPAIGNS ON BOTH SIDES CEASED TO EXIST!
 
Old Blue 2 said:
The Remain campaign also told a load of whoppers...

And once midnight chimed on 22nd June, both campaigns no longer had a remit to do anything. What happened next was that the Government was to act on the outcome. THE CAMPAIGNS ON BOTH SIDES CEASED TO EXIST!
Click to expand...

They both still exist. Stronger In changed their name to Open Britain.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
The Remain campaign also told a load of whoppers...

And once midnight chimed on 22nd June, both campaigns no longer had a remit to do anything. What happened next was that the Government was to act on the outcome. THE CAMPAIGNS ON BOTH SIDES CEASED TO EXIST!
Click to expand...
Insightful.

The rest of my post covered the issues with exactly that, never mind.
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
What the judges concluded was simple - the Govt can't alter the rights of UK citizens by overturning the 1972 act without going through the House. They're not inferring with anything, they're merely giving clarity on what the constitutional process should be. May acting unilaterally without the backing of the House isn't the correct process. It never was, and trying to wing it off the back of the referendum under the guise of the 'will of the people' was clearly incorrect.
Click to expand...

Seriously, dog, go look at the wording. They are cutting across the machinery of State on a current Act of Parliament. They are acting outwith their powers.
 
The Esk said:
The renegotiation deal in February includes the following:

"It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”
Click to expand...


At the moment yes but moving down the years line who knows. If other member states voted for closer union how long before we are in an untenable position. You side stepped the question as you have done before in posts. You voted to remain but ignore talk such as this, also the levelling of tax rates, you just brush these under the carpet, out of sight out of mind.
 
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