Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

sorry mate we dont live in a direct democracy.
i thought most of the brexiters (the non racists) voted out because they wanted parliament to be sovereign and not the EU. ironic theyre so upset the judges have declared parliament is sovereign in this case.

I'm not upset. I stated my case on page 780, as I've recently posted. It is a classic legal wrange over the construction and interpretation of a word, or phrase, or phrases, in an Act of Parliament. And upon the determination of the construction, then a course of action follows. A different construction, a different course.

To summarise what has gone on, as I see it:
1. May decided that the legal basis was there in the various Acts of Parliament to simply proceed with Brexit;
2. A challenge was made via the courts on the grounds that Parliament was being bypassed in the process;
3. The Judges considered the challenge, read the relevant Acts, and made a ruling that the matter should be a topic for Parliament to discuss (and I presume vote on the various exit issues);
4. May (and undoubtedly her legal advisors) believe a legal challenge would be successful, so they have set in train an appeal against the decision of the three Judges.
That's where things lie at present, as far as I can gather.

 

[Old Blue 2]

It was entirely logical and substantiated by case law and statute. - Zamora, Burma Oil Co, the Case of Proclamations and others, the Bill of Rights and of course, the ECA 1972.

Good evening Esk!

As you can probably expect, I will refer you to my post on page 780 for my considered views on the subject.

By the way, all case law does not produce precedent. In my days in Government service I saw decisions at Court of Appeal level not setting precedent; I saw decisions at House of Lords level not setting precedent...

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

sorry mate we dont live in a direct democracy.
i thought most of the brexiters (the non racists) voted out because they wanted parliament to be sovereign and not the EU. ironic theyre so upset the judges have declared parliament is sovereign in this case.

As I keep saying ad nauseam - The tories were the only party to offer the referendum. 66.1% voted in the GE and the tories won the election.

72.2% voted in the referendum, and the majority voted out in a straight in/out choice. There wasn't any other choice.

As many people voted out as did for the four parties that gathered the most votes after the tories.

The conclusion is clear - it shouldn't be up for further debate. There must have been more people (like me) who voted against the tories, but have given them the advice to get us out.

And now it's time for me pit.

 

[Clint Planet]

Er, doesnt every democracy do that?

Not in PR countries, no.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Friday night, EU In or Out thread. Great!

Anyway, I'm off to some guitar forums now for some time. Might pop back in later!

Oh damn! Another alert has popped up!!!

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Mate, keep your homophobic views to yourself please.

WT absolute F are you on about?

Oh sod it, I'm too tired to be arsed entertaining ya.

G'night y'all x

 

[bring the ghost on]

It was entirely logical and substantiated by case law and statute. - Zamora, Burma Oil Co, the Case of Proclamations and others, the Bill of Rights and of course, the ECA 1972.

Spot on.

Fully agree with @Clint Planet on this one, for one of our national newspapers to brand judges enemies of the state just proves how appalling the press in this country is, particularly when their vested interests suffer a blow from legal experts simply trying to give the proper application of the law to the circumstances.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Bang on.

The Brexit vote and its surrounding cocktail of lies, racism and bigotry has palpably diminished us as a nation. The UK feels a smaller, less-likeable place and I don't see any of the benefits that were promised us by the serpent-tongued brexiteers. Parliamentary sovereignty? Ah, so you weren't really interested in British courts ruling on British matters or in the UK Parliament having sovereignty over the political direction of the land. I see. It was just empty-headed xenophobia and political opportunism.

And today's "Enemies of the People" Daily Mail front-page splash is, quite frankly, fascism. The intimidation of the judiciary for upholding the rule of law. Creeping Fascism - nothing more, nothing less.

Well done, all you brexiteers. What a brave new world you have created, to have such sentiments in it.

Brilliant post mate, my thoughts exactly

 

[Joey66]

It was entirely logical and substantiated by case law and statute. - Zamora, Burma Oil Co, the Case of Proclamations and others, the Bill of Rights and of course, the ECA 1972.

The ECA in 1972 was the common market treaty which if I am right was to join it done by referendum there have been three referendums no one ever voted for a Polictical union untill now?
The result for the first time was OUT! the others backed just a FREE trade agreement in EUROPE,
Let's see what the Supreme Court says ?
Considering on Monday Northern Ireland Jude voted the opposite sometimes the law can be an ass but it has to be respected IMO!

 

[mightymoyes]

As I keep saying ad nauseam - The tories were the only party to offer the referendum. 66.1% voted in the GE and the tories won the election.

72.2% voted in the referendum, and the majority voted out in a straight in/out choice. There wasn't any other choice.

As many people voted out as did for the four parties that gathered the most votes after the tories.

The conclusion is clear - it shouldn't be up for further debate. There must have been more people (like me) who voted against the tories, but have given them the advice to get us out.

And now it's time for me pit.

we're still leaving the EU, that hasnt changed.

 

[Joey66]

Brilliant post mate, my thoughts exactly

My thought is th Remain side told a bunch of lies - they did state clearly a vote OUT was definately outside the EU market, but forgot to mention we may be able to still trade inside it without being tied to the EU!

 

[The Esk]

Good evening Esk!

As you can probably expect, I will refer you to my post on page 780 for my considered views on the subject.

By the way, all case law does not produce precedent. In my days in Government service I saw decisions at Court of Appeal level not setting precedent; I saw decisions at House of Lords level not setting precedent...

Good afternoon OB2 (it's afternoon here). Im aware that higher courts do not necessarily have to accept the precedent of a lower court, but such is the volume of precedent identified in the full judgement it would be remarkable if the Supreme Court dismissed each and every precedent, let alone looked to interpret statute differently to the High Court.

 

[bring the ghost on]

My thought is th Remain side told a bunch of lies - they did state clearly a vote OUT was definately outside the EU market, but forgot to mention we may be able to still trade inside it without being tied to the EU!

1. Why would the Remain side campaign about the benefits of leaving?

2. Both sides told a lot of lies, there is no point throwing stones.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

My thought is th Remain side told a bunch of lies - they did state clearly a vote OUT was definately outside the EU market, but forgot to mention we may be able to still trade inside it without being tied to the EU!

They were campaigning to stay in ffs, there was no laid out strategy if they lost.

 

[JonS]

2. Both sides told a lot of lies, there is no point throwing stones.

Agreed