ChatterBank0 min ago
Brexit And Supreme Court.
83 Answers
Just who is paying for this expensive farce, you and me no doubt!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by saintpeter48. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The more I see of this, the more I understand why Cameron did a runner.
He and his Party, as well as Mrs May, campaigned to STAY. But as soon as it looked like it wasn't going their way, he resigned as quick as he could, safe in the knowledge that his successor would make a complete dogs breakfast of the whole affair.
And how big a dogs breakfast she is indeed making of it !
I can see another Leadership contest in the Tory Party coming up soon.
He and his Party, as well as Mrs May, campaigned to STAY. But as soon as it looked like it wasn't going their way, he resigned as quick as he could, safe in the knowledge that his successor would make a complete dogs breakfast of the whole affair.
And how big a dogs breakfast she is indeed making of it !
I can see another Leadership contest in the Tory Party coming up soon.
“Our own resident New Judge has already said that the Appeal will fail,…”
No, no, nooooo, Mikey. Our own resident New Judge said this (at 13:21, Sat 5th Nov in response to this question):
http://
“The government should not trouble with an appeal to the Supreme Court (which, having read the full 32 page judgment of Their Lordships, I believe is unlikely to succeed anyway).”
“Unlikely to succeed”, Mikey, not the same as “will fail”. Strange things happen in both justice and politics. There is no doubt that the making and breaking of international treaties is normally a matter for the Executive. However, the breaking of this particular treaty does indeed remove certain rights of UK citizens. That is the complication. I have to say that as much as I support Brexit I don’t like the idea of the Executive assuming powers that take away my rights. For what could be next? “We don’t like the idea of you having a vote to elect your MP every five years so we’re extending the period to ten years”.
But to further muddy the waters, Parliament gave its consent to the referendum and before they did that there was a clear understanding that the result would be implemented. So it could be argued that Parliament has already given its tacit consent. Of course this could all have been avoided if politicians had framed the referendum legislation to ensure that the result could be implemented forthwith. The reason they did not is twofold: (1) they are inept but more importantly (2) few of them had any belief that the result would be to Leave so they saw no need for any such measures.
Having said all that I still believe it is unlikely (though not certain) that the decision will be reversed but stranger things have happened and we'll all have to wait until after Christmas to find out. But I must disagree with Eddie. I don't believe this is a plot to ensure Mrs May fails but further than that I believe that, by hook or by crook, A50 will be implemented probably in the first half of next year. But again, stranger things have happened!
No, no, nooooo, Mikey. Our own resident New Judge said this (at 13:21, Sat 5th Nov in response to this question):
http://
“The government should not trouble with an appeal to the Supreme Court (which, having read the full 32 page judgment of Their Lordships, I believe is unlikely to succeed anyway).”
“Unlikely to succeed”, Mikey, not the same as “will fail”. Strange things happen in both justice and politics. There is no doubt that the making and breaking of international treaties is normally a matter for the Executive. However, the breaking of this particular treaty does indeed remove certain rights of UK citizens. That is the complication. I have to say that as much as I support Brexit I don’t like the idea of the Executive assuming powers that take away my rights. For what could be next? “We don’t like the idea of you having a vote to elect your MP every five years so we’re extending the period to ten years”.
But to further muddy the waters, Parliament gave its consent to the referendum and before they did that there was a clear understanding that the result would be implemented. So it could be argued that Parliament has already given its tacit consent. Of course this could all have been avoided if politicians had framed the referendum legislation to ensure that the result could be implemented forthwith. The reason they did not is twofold: (1) they are inept but more importantly (2) few of them had any belief that the result would be to Leave so they saw no need for any such measures.
Having said all that I still believe it is unlikely (though not certain) that the decision will be reversed but stranger things have happened and we'll all have to wait until after Christmas to find out. But I must disagree with Eddie. I don't believe this is a plot to ensure Mrs May fails but further than that I believe that, by hook or by crook, A50 will be implemented probably in the first half of next year. But again, stranger things have happened!
I'll defer to NJ's legal judgement of course (although I too don't expect the government's appeal to succeed), but I did enjoy his comment about how "The reason [parliament did not frame the 2015 Referendum Act as they should have] is twofold: (1) they are inept..."
Particularly because a great deal of the court's considerations seem to revolve around what parliament did or did not intend by various pieces of EU-related legislation, but throughout assuming that supreme authority (over domestic legislation) equates to supreme competence to understand the effects of that legislation. Alas, this may be wishful thinking...
It's obvious (morally, if not legally) that the referendum was introduced to put the issue to bed, and that for many MPs it probably never really occurred to them that the British people might after all say "no" to the EU.
Particularly because a great deal of the court's considerations seem to revolve around what parliament did or did not intend by various pieces of EU-related legislation, but throughout assuming that supreme authority (over domestic legislation) equates to supreme competence to understand the effects of that legislation. Alas, this may be wishful thinking...
It's obvious (morally, if not legally) that the referendum was introduced to put the issue to bed, and that for many MPs it probably never really occurred to them that the British people might after all say "no" to the EU.
“And how big a dogs breakfast she is indeed making of it ! “
I don’t agree. The dog’s breakfast was made before the referendum was held (as I outlined above). Thusfar, Mrs May has suggested she would invoke A50 under the Royal Prerogative but has been told by the High Court that she cannot do so. On a matter of such importance it is only right and proper that the decision should be put before the Supreme Court and that’s what she’s done. Nothing she has done can be described as a dog’s breakfast. She’s simply trying to enact the will of the people and in doing so is having to deal with the ineptitude (or purposeful malice, depending the way you look at it) of her predecessor. Hardly a dog’s breakfast.
I don’t agree. The dog’s breakfast was made before the referendum was held (as I outlined above). Thusfar, Mrs May has suggested she would invoke A50 under the Royal Prerogative but has been told by the High Court that she cannot do so. On a matter of such importance it is only right and proper that the decision should be put before the Supreme Court and that’s what she’s done. Nothing she has done can be described as a dog’s breakfast. She’s simply trying to enact the will of the people and in doing so is having to deal with the ineptitude (or purposeful malice, depending the way you look at it) of her predecessor. Hardly a dog’s breakfast.
New Judge
“And how big a dogs breakfast she is indeed making of it ! “
I don’t agree. The dog’s breakfast was made before the referendum was held (as I outlined above). Thusfar, Mrs May has suggested she would invoke A50 under the Royal Prerogative but has been told by the High Court that she cannot do so. On a matter of such importance it is only right and proper that the decision should be put before the Supreme Court and that’s what she’s done. Nothing she has done can be described as a dog’s breakfast. She’s simply trying to enact the will of the people and in doing so is having to deal with the ineptitude (or purposeful malice, depending the way you look at it) of her predecessor. Hardly a dog’s breakfast.
Well that is slightly better than I was going to post
*** I'll post it anyway
Drivel, mikey!
“And how big a dogs breakfast she is indeed making of it ! “
I don’t agree. The dog’s breakfast was made before the referendum was held (as I outlined above). Thusfar, Mrs May has suggested she would invoke A50 under the Royal Prerogative but has been told by the High Court that she cannot do so. On a matter of such importance it is only right and proper that the decision should be put before the Supreme Court and that’s what she’s done. Nothing she has done can be described as a dog’s breakfast. She’s simply trying to enact the will of the people and in doing so is having to deal with the ineptitude (or purposeful malice, depending the way you look at it) of her predecessor. Hardly a dog’s breakfast.
Well that is slightly better than I was going to post
*** I'll post it anyway
Drivel, mikey!
So let's get this right, a court full of Supreme Court judges need 5 or 6 weeks to give a verdict whilst our self appointed experts here on the "bank" insist the decision is crystal clear. Claptrap. The prevarication is to judge public opinion and reaction, and to deliberate the likely ramifications should the mischievous challenge to Brexit be carried. ie The judges are playing at politics just like they got used to in the EU pyramid scheme. Should they be wise enough to throw out the peevish and misguided challenge to Brexit I would hope that they insist that the multi millionaire instigator of the action, and his "model" partner are made to meet the costs of both the hearings.
No I hoped they would honour it but also knew that there would be a lot of the losing side doing their best to welch on it. I still believe that there are enough trying to be honourable enough to implement the decision but the last 6 months of the SGB running around like lemmings have given cause for concern that parts of the establishment are trying to ignore the democratic will of the majority. The actions of the government do indicate that they are trying to progress but there are many who seek to prevent it.
eddie: "Togo, your post at 22.09 is the biggest load of claptrap,bulls*** and total rubbish I have heard in many years! " you'd know mate!
ZM:"You really need to make up your mind whether it's interfering members of the public, or welching remain supporting MPs who are trying to derail the process. Or are they in cahoots?" err why? they are not mutually exclusive, there are remainiacs in the general public and officialdom, I don't why I must "make up my mind" - we saw shortly after the vote the hoards of whining ninnies spitting their dummies out both in the public and in officialdom. So for the record it is both, ok?
ZM:"You really need to make up your mind whether it's interfering members of the public, or welching remain supporting MPs who are trying to derail the process. Or are they in cahoots?" err why? they are not mutually exclusive, there are remainiacs in the general public and officialdom, I don't why I must "make up my mind" - we saw shortly after the vote the hoards of whining ninnies spitting their dummies out both in the public and in officialdom. So for the record it is both, ok?
C'mon Tora, tel yer uncle Zacs why you feel so downtrodden by the wheels of beaurocracy? You do remind me of Robert Lindsay's Wolfie Smith character at times. Is life really that bad for you that you have to snarl at everyone?
You simply can't believe it's both the general public AND the government who are trying to scupper the deal. If you believe that the Govt are behind it then they're keeping us all in check for their continued ride on the gravy train. Yet the fact that it took a member of the public, using their constitutional rights, to bring the case to court proves against this. You seem to want to snarl at both parties when in fact one should be countering the other.
You simply can't believe it's both the general public AND the government who are trying to scupper the deal. If you believe that the Govt are behind it then they're keeping us all in check for their continued ride on the gravy train. Yet the fact that it took a member of the public, using their constitutional rights, to bring the case to court proves against this. You seem to want to snarl at both parties when in fact one should be countering the other.
// 'Do you regard the fact that a referendum has occurred to be remotely relevant to the question of whether or not the Government can give Article 50 notice?' //
yeah I was there for that
I couldnt believe my ears
as a highly paid QC Eadie would know he was in a court of law ( he been there before see ?) and they erm decide law ( the judges do) according to rules set down ... and not by referendum nor by the voter in the street - or ordeal by page 3 of the SUn (Gor whatta scorcher look at Lady Hales tots ! )
I kinda thought Eadie would say - "look the govt withdraws its case as it is obvious to even the flower seller outside no 10 (the one who cant write) that HMG doesnt stand a chance with a rehash of these stupid arguments which failed the first time round"
but nope he is looking to four days worth of fees
yeah I was there for that
I couldnt believe my ears
as a highly paid QC Eadie would know he was in a court of law ( he been there before see ?) and they erm decide law ( the judges do) according to rules set down ... and not by referendum nor by the voter in the street - or ordeal by page 3 of the SUn (Gor whatta scorcher look at Lady Hales tots ! )
I kinda thought Eadie would say - "look the govt withdraws its case as it is obvious to even the flower seller outside no 10 (the one who cant write) that HMG doesnt stand a chance with a rehash of these stupid arguments which failed the first time round"
but nope he is looking to four days worth of fees
Latest Posts
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Animals & Nature16 mins ago
