Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

Another strawman. The lobby was for 16+, no-one has ever mentioned it going below that.

It's called taking things to a ludicrous conclusion.

So Remain lost. Hey, why don't we lower the voting age then...

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

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.

I'm pretty sure the consent amongst the UK public for leaving would have grown exponentially had the EU started enforcing closer union on us after we opted out.

 

[Toffeelover]

Actually it was going to be exactly that and enshrined in treaties.

Mate could easily be replaced by the 2032 Maastricht Treaty!!!!! All treaties can be replaced or amended.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

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.

Sorry mate, I never meant it to sound like that because I agree, if it's written in law it should be upheld, meant it more along the lines of that it's going to turn it into a farce in Parliament now.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Mate could easily be replaced by the 2032 Maastricht Treaty!!!!! All treaties can be replaced or amended.

Yep, with our consent, which would have been witheld in this case.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Insightful.

The rest of my post covered the issues with exactly that, never mind.

No it didn't. You said that the Leave campaign told whoppers and cut and run. Go read your post again.

 

[Toffeelover]

I'm pretty sure the consent amongst the UK public for leaving would have grown exponentially had the EU started enforcing closer union on us after we opted out.

Would you have joined them?

 

[The Esk]

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.

Appreciate your detailed thoughts, I'll reply later as am out currently

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Would you have joined them?

Yep.

I'm not prejudicially attached to either the remain or leave camps. I weighed it all up and made my decision - which I stand by.

But anyone who claims that their mind cannot be changed by a differing in circumstances isn't a reasonable person.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

I'd be fairly pissed off if my country voted against it and had to do it because your country voted for it.

I take it you're referring to Scotland?


January 2013 - camoron pledges eu ref. in next conservative manifesto

18 September 2014 - scots referendum on independece.

Should've voted out of the UK then, innit? Not as if the warning shot hadn't been fired.

 

[Toffeelover]

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.

Phew, that is very good mate. Ultimately which is he final court in the UK?

 

[The Cowboy]

Oh dear! At the risk of repeating myself, all eligible voters had the opportunity to vote. Voting goes three ways: For, Against, Abstentions. Those who elected not to vote are in the 'Abstentions' category, which is every bit as legal as those in the other two categories. End of...

Sheesh, it's like banging my head against a brick wall.

It's not the eligible voters in talking about. It's the ineligible ones, the kids (all of them, not just the contentious 16-18yo ones) who will have to face the fallout of this rather messy divorce.

 

[Toffeelover]

Yep.

I'm not prejudicially attached to either the remain or leave camps. I weighed it all up and made my decision - which I stand by.

But anyone who claims that their mind cannot be changed by a differing in circumstances isn't a reasonable person.

As did I mate.

This is probably the most intellectual thread there has ever been on GOT.

 

[Barnfred 55]

The problem with the referendum and it's aftermath, was that the Govt of the day was campaigning against Leave.

There was therefore no plan set out by said Govt for what happened if Leave won.

The Leave campaign itself told a load of whoppers and then ran away from them and scattered the following day, wiping it's website of the evidence in the process. They had no authority or mandate to promise anything and yet many took their hollow promises to equate to what would happen if Leave won.

The vote itself was in or out, the Govt has since tried to guess what the priorities were to the electorate, and settled on immigration.

Brexit means Brexit was born, but the trouble is that Brexit meant different things to different people. If there was a vote now on whether Brexit should mean no free movement even if that cost us single market access, which would win? The answer is we don't know. That's the problem with this whole sorry mess. We've ended up with politicians trying to second guess what is acceptable or unacceptable to the electorate now things are maybe a tad clearer based on a yes / no poll back in June.

There were lies and scare mongering on both sides. It was more like an American election than British one and was made worse by the press and media who were like red rags to a bull.

There were definite pros and cons on both sides but practically nobody was taking any time to give a balanced viewpoint to the voters. Had they done so there may easily have been a different outcome. With a lot of people the more you force their hands the more they dig in.

The whole thing has been a total cock up and today's decision could lead the country into a constitutional crisis and possibly significant civil unrest. I hope not but it could happen.

 

[Toffeelover]

I take it you're referring to Scotland?


January 2013 - camoron pledges eu ref. in next conservative manifesto

18 September 2014 - scots referendum on independece.

Should've voted out of the UK then, innit? Not as if the warning shot hadn't been fired.

But the Scots leaders qualified that vote on independence with a "What If".