Tax haven's have even less money to spend on public services. Still, it's all about taking back control, or something.Lancasterclaret wrote:Come off it Dom, you know as well as i do that a low tariff, low welfare country means less money on public services.
And as we are going to have a Tory govt for the foreseeable future, that is where we are heading
Today's Brexit vote
-
- Posts: 2207
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
- Been Liked: 1344 times
- Has Liked: 438 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Last edited by JohnMcGreal on Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 17930
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3845 times
- Has Liked: 2066 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Does it really look like a promise to you? Or a suggestion?Lancasterclaret wrote:If Quikenthetempo is going down that route.
Then BOOM!
The referendum is only advisory. Thats all it is.
Has a promise ever started with the word 'Lets'?
Unfortunately I don't think any of my views will influence anything to do with the referendum.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Your argument is like the Brexit one for trade.
Very, very weak
Very, very weak
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
- Been Liked: 2562 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
as long as nobody thinks they can complain when that money isn't spent on the nhs, thats fine.Quickenthetempo wrote:Does it really look like a promise to you? Or a suggestion?
Has a promise ever started with the word 'Lets'?
-
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
- Been Liked: 1177 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
- Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666
Re: Today's Brexit vote
If you can't understand the difference between a manifesto (promise) issued by a party and a suggestion put forward by one side of a campaign then you are in bother.
Just how were 'leave' or 'Remain' going to implement any of their suggested changes, exactly? The public were voting on the act to leave or remain, not for governance.
Just how were 'leave' or 'Remain' going to implement any of their suggested changes, exactly? The public were voting on the act to leave or remain, not for governance.
This user liked this post: Quickenthetempo
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Today's Brexit vote
So politicians can say anything they like as long as it's not in the manifesto, or explicitly uses "promise", and they don't have to follow through?Darthlaw wrote:If you can't understand the difference between a manifesto (promise) issued by a party and a suggestion put forward by one side of a campaign then you are in bother.
Just how were 'leave' or 'Remain' going to implement any of their suggested changes, exactly? The public were voting on the act to leave or remain, not for governance.
Imagine if your mate said to you "come over to mine and let's get drunk" and when you got there he told you he's going out while you babysit, you'd be pretty ****** off. But hey, he only suggested you get drunk.
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller
-
- Posts: 17930
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3845 times
- Has Liked: 2066 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Whatever happens after we leave the EU it is down to our government and can be held accountable.quoonbeatz wrote:as long as nobody thinks they can complain when that money isn't spent on the nhs, thats fine.
-
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
- Been Liked: 1177 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
- Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Leave - Spend £350 m on the NHS
Remain - World War 3 if we leave
Leave - We'll reduce immigration
Remain - Punishment budget will be required.
It would seem that yes, politicians can say anything they like. Imagine that, politicians lying...
Remain - World War 3 if we leave
Leave - We'll reduce immigration
Remain - Punishment budget will be required.
It would seem that yes, politicians can say anything they like. Imagine that, politicians lying...
This user liked this post: Sidney1st
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
- Been Liked: 2562 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
agreed but i think there's a lot of people 'in bother', thats kind of why we are where we are.Darthlaw wrote:If you can't understand the difference between a manifesto (promise) issued by a party and a suggestion put forward by one side of a campaign then you are in bother.
.
there's no need to be misleading. to campaign on something saying 'we can do this' but then as soon as you've won be like 'psyche!' is a bit shitty really.
goes for both sides that.
Last edited by quoonbeatz on Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:37 pm
- Been Liked: 155 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Is it a quiz? I'm going for the current Foreign Secretary.Quickenthetempo wrote:So which politicians who were responsible for the bus advert have a say in were the money we save will be spent?
-
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
- Been Liked: 1177 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
- Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666
Re: Today's Brexit vote
My point is both were as misleading as the other. Unfortunately for Remain, they got found out sooner with Dave's 'I'll get reform from the EU' and his subsequent Neville Chamberlain moment.quoonbeatz wrote:agreed but i think there's a lot of people 'in bother', thats kind of why we are where we are.
there's no need to be misleading. to campaign on something saying 'we can do this' but then as soon as you've won be like 'psyche!' is a bit shitty really.
goes for both sides that.
The fact Juncker, the day before the referendum, said there would be no more reform just showed how equally empty Remain's promises could be.
This user liked this post: quoonbeatz
-
- Posts: 6842
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
- Been Liked: 2012 times
- Has Liked: 2287 times
- Location: lismore co. waterford
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Manifestoes tick me off. They cover a myriad of subjects, all diverse. You might vote on one of them but when they win they scream "We have a manifesto".
We need more referendums, like the Swiss.
We need more referendums, like the Swiss.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Still lots of huffing n puffing from Remoaners.
Burnley lost to a dubious penalty on Sunday. I was gutted. But it's Tuesday now and looking forward to making progress in the Cup. And getting 3 more valuable survival points against Leicester on Tuesday. Whining and whinging about what happened in North London won't change a thing.
Remoaners. Democracy isn't something that's only rammed down other people's throats. Accept the referendum result like as Clarets, we have to take Sundays result on the chin.
Morinho whines and moans is decisions go against him.
Be more like Dyche. "We move on"
Burnley lost to a dubious penalty on Sunday. I was gutted. But it's Tuesday now and looking forward to making progress in the Cup. And getting 3 more valuable survival points against Leicester on Tuesday. Whining and whinging about what happened in North London won't change a thing.
Remoaners. Democracy isn't something that's only rammed down other people's throats. Accept the referendum result like as Clarets, we have to take Sundays result on the chin.
Morinho whines and moans is decisions go against him.
Be more like Dyche. "We move on"
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Aye, years of utter ******** from politicians has finally come home to roost in Brexit and Trump.
-
- Posts: 15478
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3547 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: Oxfordshire
Re: Today's Brexit vote
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 42976.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
- Been Liked: 1177 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
- Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Please stop referring to them as remoaners. It's actually quite good to have debate at last with some who voted remain without that pish being thrown around.
-
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
- Been Liked: 1177 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
- Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Wow.
We'l be having a referendum on which postage to send the final proposal on next.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
JohnMcGreal wrote:The right decision. The great dictator is going to have to learn that we live in a parliamentary democracy, and she can't just do as she pleases while bypassing our sovereign parliament.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
I think the objections are not that the PM can't do what she wants because Parliament has the veto; it's that the public via referendum's view is also subject to Parliament's veto. There are arguments as to whether or not we have referendums at all, but if we are having them, they ought to be binding on parliament; It now appears they are not.
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
- Been Liked: 2562 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
i think thats the biggest problem with this referendum, both arguments were packed with bo11ocks.Darthlaw wrote:My point is both were as misleading as the other. Unfortunately for Remain, they got found out sooner with Dave's 'I'll get reform from the EU' and his subsequent Neville Chamberlain moment.
The fact Juncker, the day before the referendum, said there would be no more reform just showed how equally empty Remain's promises could be.
for me there were good and bad reasons on both sides and it was a really hard decision to make but to actually find those parts of the argument you had to wade through all the wildly polar headlines - almost all of which were bullsh1t.
Last edited by quoonbeatz on Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These 3 users liked this post: Sidney1st Darthlaw keith1879
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
- Been Liked: 2562 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Darthlaw wrote:Please stop referring to them as remoaners. It's actually quite good to have debate at last with some who voted remain without that pish being thrown around.
Ringo still shakes his fist at passing planes so you're fighting a losing battle there.
These 5 users liked this post: Sidney1st Darthlaw Bacchus Cheerful SammyBoy
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6903 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Remoaners is really witty because it's a cross between remainers and moaners.
This user liked this post: keith1879
-
- Posts: 888
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
- Been Liked: 599 times
- Has Liked: 171 times
- Contact:
Re: Today's Brexit vote
The referendum was never legally binding. Nothing has changed here. All that has happened is that the legal basis of the referendum result has been tested by experts and a judgement passed. It's been shown that David Cameron's government screwed up royally by not nailing the legal position down in advance.dsr wrote:I think the objections are not that the PM can't do what she wants because Parliament has the veto; it's that the public via referendum's view is also subject to Parliament's veto. There are arguments as to whether or not we have referendums at all, but if we are having them, they ought to be binding on parliament; It now appears they are not.
Sovereignty of Parliament has been upheld. As I understand it, 'restoring' that sovereignty (as though it was ever lost) was a fundamental aim of the Leave campaign, so why are so many advocates of Brexit now up in arms? It's illogical and supports the argument that a good number of people didn't really understand the issues that they were voting on. If anything, complaining about this judgement undermines the referendum result more than advancing the argument that it should be legally binding.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
I fear many have slipped all the way back to stage 2 after today though
-
- Posts: 8069
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3060 times
- Has Liked: 5023 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Today's Brexit vote
But you can't have a referendum and then complain about the result. The people had their say, many disagree, but that is democracy.minnieclaret wrote:Manifestoes tick me off. They cover a myriad of subjects, all diverse. You might vote on one of them but when they win they scream "We have a manifesto".
We need more referendums, like the Swiss.
Personally I think too many referendum would cause more problems. Only because manifestos come as a package. Many of the components are dependent on the others. If you start cherry picking policy you would end up with chaos, and nothing would be achieved. That's why we vote for a party's manifesto, and not for the Labour plan for the NHS, and the Tories plan for the economy ....
-
- Posts: 6842
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
- Been Liked: 2012 times
- Has Liked: 2287 times
- Location: lismore co. waterford
Re: Today's Brexit vote
This was my point. People don't vote for a full manifesto they vote for what matters to them. Whether it be immigration, the EU, NHS, taxes, housing, etc.,Colburn_Claret wrote: That's why we vote for a party's manifesto, and not for the Labour plan for the NHS, and the Tories plan for the economy ....
a referendum is final. However wrong the result you honour it.
This user liked this post: Colburn_Claret
-
- Been Liked: 1 time
- Has Liked: 826 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Why are so many obsessed with what the leave campaign put on the side of a bus. I didn't believe it because the NHS is in a state of disrepair and no amount of money will improve it, its gone wrong for too long. Its a model that's 7 decades old and nobody else as copied, that tells you all you need to know. I also think that people who believe a high percentage of leave voters voted for leave because of NHS claim are completely wrong.
To counter the bus campaign though I personally thought the majority of what was coming out of Camerons and Osborne mouths was hot air and ****. Just remember a punishment budget placed on all of us would have generated a figure in pounds and pence far in advance of what the leave campaign were claiming would be pumped back into the NHS, that was also a whopping great and proven to be unnecessary lie by Osborne. Cameron resigned despite claiming he would honour the result and lead us no matter what the outcome, look what happened within 24 hours.
Both sides were as bad as each other and anybody with any sense will have seen through it all and voted for what suited their own situation the best.
And all along Imploding Turtle thinks its wrong for politicians to make promises they cannot keep and that they wont tell us lies. You must have felt let down by an awful lot of politicians on all sides of the political spectrum over the years IT.
To counter the bus campaign though I personally thought the majority of what was coming out of Camerons and Osborne mouths was hot air and ****. Just remember a punishment budget placed on all of us would have generated a figure in pounds and pence far in advance of what the leave campaign were claiming would be pumped back into the NHS, that was also a whopping great and proven to be unnecessary lie by Osborne. Cameron resigned despite claiming he would honour the result and lead us no matter what the outcome, look what happened within 24 hours.
Both sides were as bad as each other and anybody with any sense will have seen through it all and voted for what suited their own situation the best.
And all along Imploding Turtle thinks its wrong for politicians to make promises they cannot keep and that they wont tell us lies. You must have felt let down by an awful lot of politicians on all sides of the political spectrum over the years IT.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Restoring the sovereignty of Parliament over foreign powers is a good thing. Restoring Parliament's sovereignty over the a public referendum is not. If it is decided to hopld a referendum, it should not be within Parliament's power to overturn that result on the grounds that Parliament is sovereign over the people as a whole. Parliament must be accountable to the electorate.Bacchus wrote:Sovereignty of Parliament has been upheld. As I understand it, 'restoring' that sovereignty (as though it was ever lost) was a fundamental aim of the Leave campaign, so why are so many advocates of Brexit now up in arms? It's illogical and supports the argument that a good number of people didn't really understand the issues that they were voting on. If anything, complaining about this judgement undermines the referendum result more than advancing the argument that it should be legally binding.
This user liked this post: Colburn_Claret
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Then the referendum needs to be planned properly.
Thank God the people who put it together are no longer in power....oh wait
Thank God the people who put it together are no longer in power....oh wait
-
- Posts: 5231
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1623 times
- Has Liked: 397 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
I've missed much of today's events because I have been doing some work advising the public services of a tax haven how best to spend their money.JohnMcGreal wrote:Tax haven's have even less money to spend on public services. Still, it's all about taking back control, or something.
I'm thus in a good position to say what complete and utter nonsense the above statement is.
If a tax haven had no money coming in to spend on its citizens, why on earth would it choose to be a tax haven (assuming it is a fully democratic one of course)?
-
- Posts: 888
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
- Been Liked: 599 times
- Has Liked: 171 times
- Contact:
Re: Today's Brexit vote
In which case the referendum should be clearly stated (and legally tested) as being binding on Parliament before it was held. This is one wasn't, as has just been proven. I completely understand that some people disagree with that state of affairs but any complaints should be directed at the government, not the judges or the people who brought this case to court (correctly as has been proven.)dsr wrote:Restoring the sovereignty of Parliament over foreign powers is a good thing. Restoring Parliament's sovereignty over the a public referendum is not. If it is decided to hopld a referendum, it should not be within Parliament's power to overturn that result on the grounds that Parliament is sovereign over the people as a whole. Parliament must be accountable to the electorate.
In any case, it won't affect the outcome as Parliament will almost certainly pass any required legislation.
-
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
- Been Liked: 969 times
- Has Liked: 204 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Gina Miller obviously had a clearer understanding of the Constitution than Theresa Maybe and her advisors otherwise she would not have embarked on this frivolous appeal.
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
- Been Liked: 2562 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
i think the point was less money rather than no money.CrosspoolClarets wrote:If a tax haven had no money coming in to spend on its citizens, why on earth would it choose to be a tax haven (assuming it is a fully democratic one of course)?
i'm not massively knowledgeable about such things but i'm not sure any other tax havens have populations of 64 million people.
This user liked this post: JohnMcGreal
-
- Posts: 7301
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1823 times
- Has Liked: 3952 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
I think that it should be made clear to a minority on this board, that this judicial ruling really has virtually nothing to do with Brexit.
It simply seeks to reaffirm that in any circumstance the authority of the PM and cabinet has to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and due process, and that you can't just have a PM using the "Royal prerogative" to push though any measure without full consultation.
For those who disagree. Why not look at it from the opposite angle:
Let's suppose that on June 24th Cameron had said: "This is a very narrow victory for leave. It'll be very bad for business, it'll cause enormous problems with the Irish border, the Scots voted against it, we haven't voted to leave the single market, 16 and 17 year olds who couldn't vote will be part of the electorate by the time we have negotiated an exit, ex-Pats didn't vote, the NHS won't get 350 million etc.etc., and for this reason I'm staying on as PM, and won't be triggering Article 50, but we will seek further negotiation with the EU".
In this circumstance there would have been justified outrage at his dictatorial behaviour, and if he had refused to put this to parliament, then there would have correctly been a legal challenge. You can see the headlines in the Mail, Sun, Express etc., and when judges correctly ruled that Cameron needed to go through due Parliamentary process, then they would have been hailed as "Defenders of Democracy and Friends of the People".
However when Theresa May opts to trigger Article 50 without due Parliamentary process, these same judges are vilified as "Enemies of the People".
So it's really nothing to do with "Remoaning" as some would have it, it's all about defending our hard earned democratic process.
It simply seeks to reaffirm that in any circumstance the authority of the PM and cabinet has to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and due process, and that you can't just have a PM using the "Royal prerogative" to push though any measure without full consultation.
For those who disagree. Why not look at it from the opposite angle:
Let's suppose that on June 24th Cameron had said: "This is a very narrow victory for leave. It'll be very bad for business, it'll cause enormous problems with the Irish border, the Scots voted against it, we haven't voted to leave the single market, 16 and 17 year olds who couldn't vote will be part of the electorate by the time we have negotiated an exit, ex-Pats didn't vote, the NHS won't get 350 million etc.etc., and for this reason I'm staying on as PM, and won't be triggering Article 50, but we will seek further negotiation with the EU".
In this circumstance there would have been justified outrage at his dictatorial behaviour, and if he had refused to put this to parliament, then there would have correctly been a legal challenge. You can see the headlines in the Mail, Sun, Express etc., and when judges correctly ruled that Cameron needed to go through due Parliamentary process, then they would have been hailed as "Defenders of Democracy and Friends of the People".
However when Theresa May opts to trigger Article 50 without due Parliamentary process, these same judges are vilified as "Enemies of the People".
So it's really nothing to do with "Remoaning" as some would have it, it's all about defending our hard earned democratic process.
These 3 users liked this post: RocketLawnChair keith1879 Bacchus
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
To be fair, the only one who doesn't get that is Ringo.
And also to be fair, he doesn't care anyway.
As long as the trains run on time, he's happy.
And also to be fair, he doesn't care anyway.
As long as the trains run on time, he's happy.
These 2 users liked this post: nil_desperandum Bacchus
-
- Posts: 7301
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1823 times
- Has Liked: 3952 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Except its is clearly established, and was recorded in Hansard prior to the referendum, that in our system of parliamentary democracy, any referendum can only be advisory, and is not binding on Parliament.dsr wrote:Restoring the sovereignty of Parliament over foreign powers is a good thing. Restoring Parliament's sovereignty over the a public referendum is not. If it is decided to hopld a referendum, it should not be within Parliament's power to overturn that result on the grounds that Parliament is sovereign over the people as a whole. Parliament must be accountable to the electorate.
Basically Parliament can do whatever it wants, but there would be a clear expectation that it would follow the advice of the people.
The big issue is May's misunderstanding of this simple and clear point, and the money and time she has wasted in this legal challenge rather than just getting on with it.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Charlie Mullins is a Tim Sherwood
Re: Today's Brexit vote
It's not just May's understanding that was faulty. Cameron spent the run-up to the vote saying he would invoke article 50 the day after the vote if Brexit won, and he wasn't to my knowledge called up on that. If Cameron hadn't changed his mind (or been lying all along) about stopping in power, this mess could be even worse.nil_desperandum wrote:Except its is clearly established, and was recorded in Hansard prior to the referendum, that in our system of parliamentary democracy, any referendum can only be advisory, and is not binding on Parliament.
Basically Parliament can do whatever it wants, but there would be a clear expectation that it would follow the advice of the people.
The big issue is May's misunderstanding of this simple and clear point, and the money and time she has wasted in this legal challenge rather than just getting on with it.
What they presumably will do now is put a one-line bill through the Commons and the Lords to approve the invoking of Article 50. And if, as you claim, they had known all along that this bill would be needed, they would surely have done this on the day after the vote.
Can you link any site anywhere on the internet, published before the vote, that says the vote was advisory and not binding? This Hansard item, for example? It was certainly not widely publicised.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
You can't act all shocked when stuff isn't published widely dsr.
maybe the likes of the Sun and the Mail should have spent a bit more time on research on stuff like this, rather than making stuff up about migrants.
maybe the likes of the Sun and the Mail should have spent a bit more time on research on stuff like this, rather than making stuff up about migrants.
-
- Been Liked: 1 time
- Has Liked: 826 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
You know my stance on this nil and I seem to think you disagreed with me to a point. I still firmly believe if Remain had won the referendum we wouldn't have ended up in the supreme court. It would have been a case of status quo lets get on with it. So the judicial ruling does partly have something to do with Brexit because this challenge would never have been brought but for the result of Brexit.nil_desperandum wrote:I think that it should be made clear to a minority on this board, that this judicial ruling really has virtually nothing to do with Brexit.
It simply seeks to reaffirm that in any circumstance the authority of the PM and cabinet has to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and due process, and that you can't just have a PM using the "Royal prerogative" to push though any measure without full consultation.
For those who disagree. Why not look at it from the opposite angle:
Let's suppose that on June 24th Cameron had said: "This is a very narrow victory for leave. It'll be very bad for business, it'll cause enormous problems with the Irish border, the Scots voted against it, we haven't voted to leave the single market, 16 and 17 year olds who couldn't vote will be part of the electorate by the time we have negotiated an exit, ex-Pats didn't vote, the NHS won't get 350 million etc.etc., and for this reason I'm staying on as PM, and won't be triggering Article 50, but we will seek further negotiation with the EU".
In this circumstance there would have been justified outrage at his dictatorial behaviour, and if he had refused to put this to parliament, then there would have correctly been a legal challenge. You can see the headlines in the Mail, Sun, Express etc., and when judges correctly ruled that Cameron needed to go through due Parliamentary process, then they would have been hailed as "Defenders of Democracy and Friends of the People".
However when Theresa May opts to trigger Article 50 without due Parliamentary process, these same judges are vilified as "Enemies of the People".
So it's really nothing to do with "Remoaning" as some would have it, it's all about defending our hard earned democratic process.
As for the judicial ruling itself I agree with it. The PM and the cabinet cannot just do what they want when they want and major issues should come under extreme scrutiny from our elected MPs. its just concerning that its taken something as monumental as Brexit to remind them of that.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Indeed. And if you could stop calling the emergency budget a "punishment budget" that would help the debate along too. You're absolutely right about the "remoaners" nonsense though. That just screams "I'm not to be taken seriously".Darthlaw wrote:Please stop referring to them as remoaners. It's actually quite good to have debate at last with some who voted remain without that pish being thrown around.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Farage even said before the vote that if the result ended up being 52-48 then it wouldn't be the end of the issue.RocketLawnChair wrote:You know my stance on this nil and I seem to think you disagreed with me to a point. I still firmly believe if Remain had won the referendum we wouldn't have ended up in the supreme court. It would have been a case of status quo lets get on with it.
This user liked this post: SammyBoy
-
- Posts: 8069
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3060 times
- Has Liked: 5023 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Today's Brexit vote
But it was. 3 of the judges voted that it didn't need to go back before parliament, therefore at best it's a grey area. Parliament said let the people decide, and they did. Your right, it probably will get ratified anyway, but this whole scenario has been a massive waste of tax payers money, and completely undemocratic.Bacchus wrote:In which case the referendum should be clearly stated (and legally tested) as being binding on Parliament before it was held. This is one wasn't, as has just been proven. I completely understand that some people disagree with that state of affairs but any complaints should be directed at the government, not the judges or the people who brought this case to court (correctly as has been proven.)
In any case, it won't affect the outcome as Parliament will almost certainly pass any required legislation.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
But this decision has already been made. Invoking Article 50 is the only way to leave the EU, and the democratic process has been followed logically:RocketLawnChair wrote:You know my stance on this nil and I seem to think you disagreed with me to a point. I still firmly believe if Remain had won the referendum we wouldn't have ended up in the supreme court. It would have been a case of status quo lets get on with it. So the judicial ruling does partly have something to do with Brexit because this challenge would never have been brought but for the result of Brexit.
As for the judicial ruling itself I agree with it. The PM and the cabinet cannot just do what they want when they want and major issues should come under extreme scrutiny from our elected MPs. its just concerning that its taken something as monumental as Brexit to remind them of that.
1. The general election was won by the conservatives, who had promised an EU referendum if they won.
2. Parliament passed a bill confirming that the referendum would be held, clearly stating their intention that the referendum result would be a definitive, binding decision on whether we stay or whether we go.
3. The referendum was held and we decided to go.
There is no room for doubt anywhere in the chain of events. The whole process led up to the verdict that the UK population voted to leave the EU, in accordance with the system set out by Parliament, and for Parliament now to say in effect "we had our fingers crossed so it doesn't count" would be a nonsense. If the vote had been to Remain and Cameron had invoked Article 50 next day, that wouldn't have been a bigger nonsense than this lot is.
Put the one-line bill through Parliament, and see which of our legislators has the nerve to tell the public that they don't accept the result of the referendum.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
What do you do for a living DSR?
If you are not a retired supreme court judge, then you might be a bit out of your depth on this one!
If you are not a retired supreme court judge, then you might be a bit out of your depth on this one!
-
- Posts: 4751
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 238 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
I'm a brexiteer, whoever wrote the referendum bill made a mistake in not making it explicit that the government had the power to trigger article 50. Anyway they're is a big majority for triggering it so they're is no problem.
-
- Posts: 7301
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1823 times
- Has Liked: 3952 times
Re: Today's Brexit vote
There are many examples if you have a look, but this for starters:dsr wrote:
Can you link any site anywhere on the internet, published before the vote, that says the vote was advisory and not binding? This Hansard item, for example? It was certainly not widely publicised.
October 2010, David Cameron’s Government's response to an inquiry by a House of Lords committee:
That inquiry concluded that “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”.
In response, then-constitutional reform minister Mark Harper stated: “The Government agrees with this recommendation.
“Under the UK’s constitutional arrangements, Parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result.”
Further:
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendum to be held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, on whether they should remain a member of the European Union or leave it. The bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 May 2015. The Act was subsequently passed by 544-53 votes on its second reading on 9 June 2015, a ratio of six to one in the Commons and was approved by the House of Lords on 14 December 2015, and given Royal Assent on 17 December 2015.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Today's Brexit vote
Interesting, I wonder if the change at the top meant that no one actually knew how Cameron would have gone about it?
Re: Today's Brexit vote
If this thread is to be restricted to retired high court judges, it might be a bit short of posts.Lancasterclaret wrote:What do you do for a living DSR?
If you are not a retired supreme court judge, then you might be a bit out of your depth on this one!
Anyway, I haven't said that the specific decision is wrong in law, only that it's wrong in principle. Parliament has already agreed (in advance) to accept the referendum vote, and if there are any unforeseen legal hoops to jump through, it should be a matter of days to do it.
Re: Today's Brexit vote
When the F*CK are those people in favour of "Brexit" (horrible word) going to stop screaming long enough to realise that reaffirming the right of parliament to scrutinise and amend legislation does not necessarily mean that they will actually refuse to pass Article 50. It would be political suicide for a major party to do so and you should all calm down, take your tablets and be reassured that this stupid (in my opinion) action WILL be taken this spring. What this ruling does mean however is that YOUR representatives, those people for whom YOU (in the majority) voted (or could have voted if you had bothered to do so) will get the chance on YOUR behalf to review the detail of one of the most momentous actions of the last 40 years. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Apologies for the bad-tempered capital letters chaps - but at least I haven't resorted to simple lying and stupidity.
These 3 users liked this post: nil_desperandum Imploding Turtle SammyBoy