Clarity Bloom Cbd Gummies (I've Tested)...
Food & Drink1 min ago
Enemies Of The People? I'd Say So.
172 Answers
http://
Don't these pro EU Liberal judges realise what they have done? Perhaps if they came down out of their ivory towers occasionally and visited their country they'd realise the fury they have caused.
Don't these pro EU Liberal judges realise what they have done? Perhaps if they came down out of their ivory towers occasionally and visited their country they'd realise the fury they have caused.
Answers
Jim, I’m not trying to subvert anything. The people who brought this before the courts are doing that. Pretty much convinced of a ‘Remain’ result, Parliament elected, in not insubstantia
12:03 Sat 05th Nov 2016
"...but if the terms it introduces are believed to be unfair, descriminatory or unlawful, would you not expect the courts to become involved? "
If the UK decided to eject all EU nationals (highly unlikely, but "if") then of course it will be discriminatory. Almost anything that the UK decides to do which will impact of EU citizens from the other 27 nations will be discriminatory. Any measures will almost certainly discriminate against EU citizens settled here. But the UK currently operates a discriminatory immigration policy - it discriminates against people from non-EU countries who wish to settle here but I don't recall that being the subject of any court action. So it could be argued that applying the same rules to everybody would remove that discrimination.
But we're discussing details that my very argument suggests are not the issue as far as this question goes. A50 needs to be triggered and the government must do whatever is necessary to see that happens. The details (which would not be of our withdrawal but of our future relationship with the EU after we have left) can come later.
If the UK decided to eject all EU nationals (highly unlikely, but "if") then of course it will be discriminatory. Almost anything that the UK decides to do which will impact of EU citizens from the other 27 nations will be discriminatory. Any measures will almost certainly discriminate against EU citizens settled here. But the UK currently operates a discriminatory immigration policy - it discriminates against people from non-EU countries who wish to settle here but I don't recall that being the subject of any court action. So it could be argued that applying the same rules to everybody would remove that discrimination.
But we're discussing details that my very argument suggests are not the issue as far as this question goes. A50 needs to be triggered and the government must do whatever is necessary to see that happens. The details (which would not be of our withdrawal but of our future relationship with the EU after we have left) can come later.
This wasn't planned out beforehand, dunnitall, because the elite simply could not comprehend that the people might not agree with them - so they didn't waste their time (despite soothing noises) in making any plans. Cameron was so sure that he could parade his pathetic little batch of excuses for renegotiation ad persuade us that they were significant. I think the word is 'cocksure'.
No, if 'Remain' had won then UKIP and Leave would have continued their course of persuading voters until at the next election many more eurosceptic MPs would have been elected. Eventually the momentum (coupled with the collapse of the EU) would have led to a collective vote to leave.
No, if 'Remain' had won then UKIP and Leave would have continued their course of persuading voters until at the next election many more eurosceptic MPs would have been elected. Eventually the momentum (coupled with the collapse of the EU) would have led to a collective vote to leave.
Dunnitall
why didnt the remoaners say " o yeah it will be really difficult you know ..."
a) they didnt think of it
b) would have made you vote the other way ?
Jim I still think you should retrain in Law - you would knock spots off the average jobbing barrister ...
and 1700 R4 Liz Truss (oops not Amber Rudd - Liz T has been even more silent than wordless Amber ) Secretary of Justice has sulkily said: " yeah well I s'pose it is a bit much. Judges n fings. And if you dont leave me alone to my week end now then I will thcream and thcream and thcream !"
why didnt the remoaners say " o yeah it will be really difficult you know ..."
a) they didnt think of it
b) would have made you vote the other way ?
Jim I still think you should retrain in Law - you would knock spots off the average jobbing barrister ...
and 1700 R4 Liz Truss (oops not Amber Rudd - Liz T has been even more silent than wordless Amber ) Secretary of Justice has sulkily said: " yeah well I s'pose it is a bit much. Judges n fings. And if you dont leave me alone to my week end now then I will thcream and thcream and thcream !"
“Can someone explain to me...please.....why wasn't this all planned out stating what happens if vote is exit and the rigmarole we would have to go thru.”
AS I explained earlier, nobody – least of all Mr Cameron, believed that in their wildest dreams a vote to Leave would be the result. You are quite right – all these issues should have been bottomed out before June 23rd. The A50 letter should have been prepared and it could have been either posted or torn up on 24th. But as I also said we are where we are and the ineptitude or irresponsibility of the politicians then in charge now needs to be sorted out. Also, as Icky has usefully pointed out, the judgement made it very clear that it was not one on the validity of the result or of the rights and wrongs of leaving. It was simply based on the law that the government must follow to get the matter enacted.
Personally I am as ardent Leaver as there could be. But I said before the vote that whatever way it went I would accept it and move on. Many of the Remainers on here were disappointed (as I would have been) but they have been decent enough since to accept the result without complaint. Those who instigated this legal action cannot be said to be so honourable. Their excuse that they want to see MPs agree to the triggering of A50 is specious. The electorate was told that the result would be respected and acted upon by the government. There was no proviso which said “provided the Commons and Lords agree”. Had they not brought the action the government would have triggered the withdrawal as they’d planned. Their action had nothing to do with wanting to see Parliamentary democracy restored. Parliament had already given its agreement to the result of the referendum being enacted when it voted in favour of the referendum being granted. It was simply an attempt to thwart or delay Brexit because they do not agree with it and are sore losers.
AS I explained earlier, nobody – least of all Mr Cameron, believed that in their wildest dreams a vote to Leave would be the result. You are quite right – all these issues should have been bottomed out before June 23rd. The A50 letter should have been prepared and it could have been either posted or torn up on 24th. But as I also said we are where we are and the ineptitude or irresponsibility of the politicians then in charge now needs to be sorted out. Also, as Icky has usefully pointed out, the judgement made it very clear that it was not one on the validity of the result or of the rights and wrongs of leaving. It was simply based on the law that the government must follow to get the matter enacted.
Personally I am as ardent Leaver as there could be. But I said before the vote that whatever way it went I would accept it and move on. Many of the Remainers on here were disappointed (as I would have been) but they have been decent enough since to accept the result without complaint. Those who instigated this legal action cannot be said to be so honourable. Their excuse that they want to see MPs agree to the triggering of A50 is specious. The electorate was told that the result would be respected and acted upon by the government. There was no proviso which said “provided the Commons and Lords agree”. Had they not brought the action the government would have triggered the withdrawal as they’d planned. Their action had nothing to do with wanting to see Parliamentary democracy restored. Parliament had already given its agreement to the result of the referendum being enacted when it voted in favour of the referendum being granted. It was simply an attempt to thwart or delay Brexit because they do not agree with it and are sore losers.
>Can someone explain to me...please.....why wasn't this all planned out stating what happens if vote is exit and the rigmarole we would have to go thru. Secondly, if the vote came in to remain.....could that have been challenged and brought up to have another referendum?
i was just about to answer when NJ's answer popped up so i won't even attempt to explain as clearly and in as much detail as he will have done.
But in short, it was thought of /known to both sides that the vote was advisory. I can see why neither side pushed the point- 'Remain' thought they would win; 'Leave' may have thought it would deter voters if they knew how difficult it would be in practice to deliver the sort of Brexit leavers thought they wanted. And maybe Leave didn't push for the referendum result to be binding because they wanted to have another bite of the cherry if Remain narrowly won.
If the vote had been to remain it couldn't have been challenged I don't think on constitutional grounds as it was just a continuance of the status quo.
As some have said Article 50 can be voted on and let's hope there is a clear result im parliament.
i was just about to answer when NJ's answer popped up so i won't even attempt to explain as clearly and in as much detail as he will have done.
But in short, it was thought of /known to both sides that the vote was advisory. I can see why neither side pushed the point- 'Remain' thought they would win; 'Leave' may have thought it would deter voters if they knew how difficult it would be in practice to deliver the sort of Brexit leavers thought they wanted. And maybe Leave didn't push for the referendum result to be binding because they wanted to have another bite of the cherry if Remain narrowly won.
If the vote had been to remain it couldn't have been challenged I don't think on constitutional grounds as it was just a continuance of the status quo.
As some have said Article 50 can be voted on and let's hope there is a clear result im parliament.
Thank you NJ as usual a concise and well explained answer. Bad losers of course, that came in the minute the result was clear. Talk about sour grapes but those of us who clearly voted OUT and I too still want out....are thwarted time and again because it doesn't fit the 'agenda' of those in power. Corrupt filthy people IMO in charge of things they should not be in charge of! I won't swear on here but believe me about this matter the air is blue and I despise those who are trying corruption to get their agenda through.
I think it's probably a case Naomi that people could have known it quite easily, if anyone had bothered to think about it properly. As it is -- as so many people have said already -- this wasn't sorted out properly, almost certainly because the referendum was *really* created to shut up the Eurosceptics of the Tory party rather than to allow the country to decide its future. In that case, it was a reckless and stupid gamble. Now, I've made clear before that I actually wanted a referendum, so I don't mean asking the public in the first place. But the way it has been set up, and conducted, both before and since the result, has been nothing short of awful in every way. Both sides struggled to campaign honestly, for a start, but more importantly we have seen the new government of Theresa May trying to rush their vision of Brexit through without challenge and without consultation in a way that is simply unsupportable in British law.
At any rate, NJ has now posted on this and I'm pleased to see his far better-informed legal opinion confirm what I've been trying to say: this judgement was essentially inevitable, and is almost certain to be upheld in the Supreme Court. As a result, portraying the judges in question as enemies of the people is simply wrong. They made what is essentially the only possible decision in law. But this doesn't strike a hammer blow for Brexit, as all the government should now do is introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament. If MPs then strike it down, take it up with them, who would be the real "enemies of the people" in the sense implied here, not the judges who have done their jobs correctly in upholding the law of this country.
At any rate, NJ has now posted on this and I'm pleased to see his far better-informed legal opinion confirm what I've been trying to say: this judgement was essentially inevitable, and is almost certain to be upheld in the Supreme Court. As a result, portraying the judges in question as enemies of the people is simply wrong. They made what is essentially the only possible decision in law. But this doesn't strike a hammer blow for Brexit, as all the government should now do is introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament. If MPs then strike it down, take it up with them, who would be the real "enemies of the people" in the sense implied here, not the judges who have done their jobs correctly in upholding the law of this country.
// Their excuse that they want to see MPs agree to the triggering of A50 is specious.//
o god look averbardy ! a judge that doesnt know the law !
well that's new !
// Funny how so many ABers knew that – but the government apparently didn’t.//
there is more law on AB than you realise Nigh
and look ( again ! ) Liz truss another member of the gubmint ( and a tory at that ) doesnt know as Lord Chancellor one of her duties she cant shirk is to support the judges as a group
heigh ho we live in interesting times
o god look averbardy ! a judge that doesnt know the law !
well that's new !
// Funny how so many ABers knew that – but the government apparently didn’t.//
there is more law on AB than you realise Nigh
and look ( again ! ) Liz truss another member of the gubmint ( and a tory at that ) doesnt know as Lord Chancellor one of her duties she cant shirk is to support the judges as a group
heigh ho we live in interesting times
jim360 has just said what I wanted to say but far better.
I accept the result of the referendum even though it did not go the way I wanted. But I could not accept it being 'railroaded' through under the direction of just one person ( who was recorded as supporting 'Remain' as late as the 22nd of June) without consultation. That speaks of dictatorship rather than democracy.
I accept the result of the referendum even though it did not go the way I wanted. But I could not accept it being 'railroaded' through under the direction of just one person ( who was recorded as supporting 'Remain' as late as the 22nd of June) without consultation. That speaks of dictatorship rather than democracy.
Jim, I'll post here what I posted elsewhere earlier.
//I have no issue with the judges – they could only rule on the case presented to them - but I do take issue with the people who took this to court. It will be interesting to see what case the government presents when it appeals the decision because if this law were set in stone, as the Remainers would have us believe, there would be no case to appeal. //
//I have no issue with the judges – they could only rule on the case presented to them - but I do take issue with the people who took this to court. It will be interesting to see what case the government presents when it appeals the decision because if this law were set in stone, as the Remainers would have us believe, there would be no case to appeal. //
naomi, No one is attempting to thwart the result !!!! When will you get that clear!!
What I object to is the way May was attempting to bypass parliment and push her very own personal version of 'Brexit' through without consultation with anyone and to keep her 'agenda' secret even from her own ministers !
That really is close to dictatorship!
There are literally 1,000's of points of law affecting everything from EU arrest warrants to postal services that need to be sorted out. Brexit is VERY far from an easy project, no one person can sort all that out on his or her own it is simply impossible!
What I object to is the way May was attempting to bypass parliment and push her very own personal version of 'Brexit' through without consultation with anyone and to keep her 'agenda' secret even from her own ministers !
That really is close to dictatorship!
There are literally 1,000's of points of law affecting everything from EU arrest warrants to postal services that need to be sorted out. Brexit is VERY far from an easy project, no one person can sort all that out on his or her own it is simply impossible!
