News0 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.
//Togo, your post at 22.09 is the biggest load of claptrap,bulls*** and total rubbish I have heard in many years! // Eddie
//Togo @22.09 -- did you only arrive on social media this morning or something?// jim360
But no reply to the post. You both should learn to get off to bed when you are "tired and emotional" (^_*)
//Togo @22.09 -- did you only arrive on social media this morning or something?// jim360
But no reply to the post. You both should learn to get off to bed when you are "tired and emotional" (^_*)
ZM: "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. " - can you not see that it is both, there are those that lost the vote in the public and sections of the government and opposition that are trying to find a way of welching on it but at the same time appearing to want to implement it. For now I think the PM is probably trying to implement but this mental miller woman as done the remainiacs a favour and thrown a spanner in the works. Many a conspiracy theorist might suggest she was put up to it. I'm worried for our country if the enemy within conspire to thwart the result of the referendum.
Haha someone agrees with me.
//All you need to know about the Brexit pantomime currently being played out in the 'Supreme Court' is that the judges involved are reported to have spent part of the weekend practising their ceremonial entrance.
They held a dummy run ahead of the hearing to make sure they could walk to their thrones and sit down without falling over in front of the TV cameras.
There's only room for seven of them, but all 11 wanted to be in the movie, so special seating arrangements had to be made. It's the first time the full complement of judges has assembled for a single case.//
//
//Only in the case of judges, it's not just about being on telly, it's about showing us plebs who's boss.
What they don't begin to understand is that, to employ a cliche, they're part of the problem, not the solution.
When Britain voted Leave, we were rejecting the whole rotten edifice — up to and including the self-regarding, self-important, self-perpetuating judicial class, who despite their aloof blather about their 'independence' are ultimately subordinate to Europe.
And still we've ended up with the future of our nation pivoting on a perverse show trial, conducted by 11 'learned friends' who don't even trust themselves to put one foot in front of the other without falling flat on their backsides in front of the TV cameras.//
Read more: http://
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
//All you need to know about the Brexit pantomime currently being played out in the 'Supreme Court' is that the judges involved are reported to have spent part of the weekend practising their ceremonial entrance.
They held a dummy run ahead of the hearing to make sure they could walk to their thrones and sit down without falling over in front of the TV cameras.
There's only room for seven of them, but all 11 wanted to be in the movie, so special seating arrangements had to be made. It's the first time the full complement of judges has assembled for a single case.//
//
//Only in the case of judges, it's not just about being on telly, it's about showing us plebs who's boss.
What they don't begin to understand is that, to employ a cliche, they're part of the problem, not the solution.
When Britain voted Leave, we were rejecting the whole rotten edifice — up to and including the self-regarding, self-important, self-perpetuating judicial class, who despite their aloof blather about their 'independence' are ultimately subordinate to Europe.
And still we've ended up with the future of our nation pivoting on a perverse show trial, conducted by 11 'learned friends' who don't even trust themselves to put one foot in front of the other without falling flat on their backsides in front of the TV cameras.//
Read more: http://
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The EU referendum was not implemented by David Cameron, it was not implemented by the cabinet, it was not implemented by the government but by the House of Commons by a margin of six to one. In doing this they charged the British people with deciding whether the UK should leave the EU, not with changing any laws, but whether to invoke invoke A50. It's my opinion that this is not a matter of law because A50 only signals our intention to change the law regarding the Lisbon Treaty.
When time runs out or an agreement is reached and the law needs to be changed, then is the time for Parliament to enact legislation.
When time runs out or an agreement is reached and the law needs to be changed, then is the time for Parliament to enact legislation.
Chiaroscuro makes a very valid point.
Triggering A50 does not alter any rights of UK citizens. It simply starts a process of our withdrawal from the EU. It could be, of course, that as part of the withdrawal negotiations, the government manages to do deal with the EU which (say) maintains the rights of UK citizens to freely settle elsewhere in the EU. This is very unlikely but not impossible. They may manage to maintain any number of personal rights (though personally that’s the only one of any significance that springs to mind which would significantly affect individuals). It is not quite right to say that our triggering A50 of itself removes any rights. I think it is unreasonable to suggest, as some MPs do, that the process of withdrawal cannot begin until the outcome of that process (at least from the UK’s side) is known It seems to suggest that if the negotiations on withdrawal are not satisfactory then withdrawal cannot proceed. This is the same argument against holding a further referendum on the terms of withdrawal. As I have said previously, the question was “Remain or Leave”. It was not “Remain or Leave (provided the terms are acceptable)”.
But as I said earlier, we will have to wait to see what Their Lordships decide.
Triggering A50 does not alter any rights of UK citizens. It simply starts a process of our withdrawal from the EU. It could be, of course, that as part of the withdrawal negotiations, the government manages to do deal with the EU which (say) maintains the rights of UK citizens to freely settle elsewhere in the EU. This is very unlikely but not impossible. They may manage to maintain any number of personal rights (though personally that’s the only one of any significance that springs to mind which would significantly affect individuals). It is not quite right to say that our triggering A50 of itself removes any rights. I think it is unreasonable to suggest, as some MPs do, that the process of withdrawal cannot begin until the outcome of that process (at least from the UK’s side) is known It seems to suggest that if the negotiations on withdrawal are not satisfactory then withdrawal cannot proceed. This is the same argument against holding a further referendum on the terms of withdrawal. As I have said previously, the question was “Remain or Leave”. It was not “Remain or Leave (provided the terms are acceptable)”.
But as I said earlier, we will have to wait to see what Their Lordships decide.
Just to answer Togo's point from yesterday a very little -- I accept that my own opinion on these matters is worth pretty much nothing, and probably not even that. If I ever said that or implied that this was an easy decision not worth appealing, that's unlikely to be the true reality -- or, at any rate, it's not my judgement that matters. But then, so what? We're having a debate and a discussion, and it would be boring indeed if all of us began and ended our posts by admitting we had no idea and nothing to offer.
The one real exception on this site is NJ, whose analysis I happily regard as well worth reading. Where he agrees with me I'm thrilled, and where we disagree I feel I can learn something. When I offer my own judgements I don't do so expecting people to regard them as having any meaningful rate, but hopefully at least they are thought-provoking. I have tried to base my posts, too, on the actual court judgements/ submissions/ transcripts from this week's proceedings, so they are at least not based on some puerile guff from the tabloids.
The one real exception on this site is NJ, whose analysis I happily regard as well worth reading. Where he agrees with me I'm thrilled, and where we disagree I feel I can learn something. When I offer my own judgements I don't do so expecting people to regard them as having any meaningful rate, but hopefully at least they are thought-provoking. I have tried to base my posts, too, on the actual court judgements/ submissions/ transcripts from this week's proceedings, so they are at least not based on some puerile guff from the tabloids.
New Judge, surely the entire point of withdrawing from the EU is to get out of 'Borderless Europe' and the right of any EU citizen to travel, work and live in any part of the EU with no restriction / permission whatsoever?
By leaving, ( and triggering A50 is the way we have to leave,) we are giving up those rights for our own citizens. Yes, there will / may be 'arrangements' and 'compromises' made, but an arrangement or compromise is NOT the same as having an absolute right.
By leaving, ( and triggering A50 is the way we have to leave,) we are giving up those rights for our own citizens. Yes, there will / may be 'arrangements' and 'compromises' made, but an arrangement or compromise is NOT the same as having an absolute right.
"New Judge, surely the entire point of withdrawing from the EU is to get out of 'Borderless Europe' and the right of any EU citizen to travel, work and live in any part of the EU with no restriction / permission whatsoever?"
You be aastounded to learn, Eddie, that I absolutely agree with you !!!
My version of leaving the EU is that the UK and its citizens would no longer have any responsibilities towards nor be subject to control by the EU - in any way whatsoever. Going alongside that would be the forfeiture of any and all rights and advantages that membership would bring (both to the country as a whole and to individual citizens). To me that is the only version of "Leaving" that I can see as satisfactory. So personally I don't expect (nor indeed do I particularly want) any of the advantages of membership. For me the price is too high to pay (but that's the pre-referendum argument which, between us all, we've done to death).
In my latest post I was just exploring ways to expand on Chiaroscuro's point that the triggering of A50, by itself, does not alter anybody's rights. But I accept that its aim, if Brexit is undertaken properly, will be the eventual forfeiture of those rights. Any "concessions" that come from the negotiations will be just that - concessions - and not rights.
You be aastounded to learn, Eddie, that I absolutely agree with you !!!
My version of leaving the EU is that the UK and its citizens would no longer have any responsibilities towards nor be subject to control by the EU - in any way whatsoever. Going alongside that would be the forfeiture of any and all rights and advantages that membership would bring (both to the country as a whole and to individual citizens). To me that is the only version of "Leaving" that I can see as satisfactory. So personally I don't expect (nor indeed do I particularly want) any of the advantages of membership. For me the price is too high to pay (but that's the pre-referendum argument which, between us all, we've done to death).
In my latest post I was just exploring ways to expand on Chiaroscuro's point that the triggering of A50, by itself, does not alter anybody's rights. But I accept that its aim, if Brexit is undertaken properly, will be the eventual forfeiture of those rights. Any "concessions" that come from the negotiations will be just that - concessions - and not rights.
NJ
I suspect that the clean break that many hope for , may not happen , when the all i's are dotted and the t's , crossed
http://
I suspect that the clean break that many hope for , may not happen , when the all i's are dotted and the t's , crossed
http://
// Triggering A50 does not alter any rights of UK citizens.//
I think this was tried in court yesterday or today
Their lordships looked pretty stunned at the proposition from James Eadie no less
"Trigger" is not a slow process which can be reversed. It means you set in motion something that has predictable irreversible consequences - in this case rather obvious loss of EU rights - perhaps Lord Mance was thinking at this 2016 version of " devaluation doesnt mean that the pound in your pocketis devalued" - that he would lose his seat on the EU court as a result of the trigger that had no consequences
or not.
we also had " we are where we are" and that we had to take the law as it is today and not what it might be later ( wow!)
This means the Gt Repeal Bill is irrelevant to the process today
Altho if you need a Great Repeal Bill then the govt accepts that you cant do everything with the stroke of a ministers pen ....
the argument at Halitosis Hall continues tomorrow
I think this was tried in court yesterday or today
Their lordships looked pretty stunned at the proposition from James Eadie no less
"Trigger" is not a slow process which can be reversed. It means you set in motion something that has predictable irreversible consequences - in this case rather obvious loss of EU rights - perhaps Lord Mance was thinking at this 2016 version of " devaluation doesnt mean that the pound in your pocketis devalued" - that he would lose his seat on the EU court as a result of the trigger that had no consequences
or not.
we also had " we are where we are" and that we had to take the law as it is today and not what it might be later ( wow!)
This means the Gt Repeal Bill is irrelevant to the process today
Altho if you need a Great Repeal Bill then the govt accepts that you cant do everything with the stroke of a ministers pen ....
the argument at Halitosis Hall continues tomorrow
// NJ, 'the eventual forfeiture of those rights. Any "concessions" that come from the negotiations will be just that - concessions - and not rights.' //
very astute - in fact powers that come from someone else
see https:/
he was the first to spot that a right involved a duty and not a power granted by someone else
very astute - in fact powers that come from someone else
see https:/
he was the first to spot that a right involved a duty and not a power granted by someone else
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Home & Garden7 mins ago
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News7 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
