Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I believe they (8-3) made the correct decision.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I would like someone to ask Gina Miller and the others who brought the case, why they didn't do the same thing previously when the reverse happened.
Gordon Brown sneaked through the back door of the building where the Lisbon treaty (aka the EU constitution)was being signed, so he cameras didn't see him, and signed the UK into it without previously being given consent by parliament.
We were signed up for all the other main treaties, in a similar way.
Why didn't one of these principled people who care so much about British Parliamentery sovereignty say a single word of protest then ?
Their real agenda is standard EU practice. If voters have the audacity to vote the wrong way in referendum, muddy the waters, confuse the issue, then when the dust has settled, make them vote again.
I would have a shred of respect for her and the others who brought the case, if they were honest enough to admit what they are actually up to.
Parliament, effectively handed sovereignty back to the people on this issue, and should have quickly followed the instruction the people gave them. The legal & constitutional technicalities don't change the principal involved one iota.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I would like someone to ask Gina Miller and the others who brought the case, why they didn't do the same thing previously when the reverse happened.
Gordon Brown sneaked through the back door of the building where the Lisbon treaty (aka the EU constitution)was being signed, so he cameras didn't see him, and signed the UK into it without previously being given consent by parliament.
We were signed up for all the other main treaties, in a similar way.
Why didn't one of these principled people who care so much about British Parliamentery sovereignty say a single word of protest then ?
Their real agenda is standard EU practice. If voters have the audacity to vote the wrong way in referendum, muddy the waters, confuse the issue, then when the dust has settled, make them vote again.
I would have a shred of respect for her and the others who brought the case, if they were honest enough to admit what they are actually up to.
Parliament, effectively handed sovereignty back to the people on this issue, and should have quickly followed the instruction the people gave them. The legal & constitutional technicalities don't change the principal involved one iota.

It's all a mere formality. Parliament will not vote against Brexit, at least not in significant numbers.

Farage was always shouting for our parliament to make decisions instead of the EU.

[LC0112G]

I would like someone to ask Gina Miller and the others who brought the case, why they didn't do the same thing previously when the reverse happened.
Gordon Brown sneaked through the back door of the building where the Lisbon treaty (aka the EU constitution)was being signed, so he cameras didn't see him, and signed the UK into it without previously being given consent by parliament.
We were signed up for all the other main treaties, in a similar way.
Why didn't one of these principled people who care so much about British Parliamentery sovereignty say a single word of protest then ?
Their real agenda is standard EU practice. If voters have the audacity to vote the wrong way in referendum, muddy the waters, confuse the issue, then when the dust has settled, make them vote again.
I would have a shred of respect for her and the others who brought the case, if they were honest enough to admit what they are actually up to.
Parliament, effectively handed sovereignty back to the people on this issue, and should have quickly followed the instruction the people gave them. The legal & constitutional technicalities don't change the principal involved one iota.

Parliament did no such thing.

Parliament agreed to hold a non binding referendum to gauge the view of the British public. There was a specific parliamentary note sent to all MP's stating that the referendum result would only be advisory. It's unlikely that the vote to hold a referendum would have passed in the commons with anything like a 6-1 majority if MP's have believed the result was binding.

Parliament did not give the Govt the right to invoke Art50, and the public cannot give the Govt that authority either. In the UK parliament is sovereign - not the Govt, and not the People. I've no idea why the Govt decided to waste taxpayers money and 3 months of the Supreme court time when they were on a no-brainer loser.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

As I said in the sentence after the part you highlighted. The legal and constitutional technicalities don't change the principle one iota.
To all intents and purposes, Parliament asked the people to take the decision and they took it. 
If this note was sent to MP,s informing them the referendum was purely advisory, I'm amazed that this information wasn't leaked to the media.
Still, its all pretty irrelevant really. I'm pretty sure that even most of the morons who inhabit the bubble, know better than to openly defy the will of the people who put them there.
In the UK the Parliament in Westminster is not Sovereign. It hasn't been for 45 years, but it soon will be. 

[Rods2]

At the end of the day a cornerstone of our democracy is an independent judiciary, which all rich have access to. I don't like the way Remoaners are trying to subvert a democratic decision to leave the EU, by using the courts, but that is their important right that started with the Magna Carta in 1215 which ended King John's absolute rule.

All societies that don't have democratic accountability of their rulers, strong property rights, independent courts and freeish speech, their citizens have much worse lives than we have.

Te Supreme Court ruling will be quickly overturned by an act of Parliament with Theresa May using a 3-line whip to make sure the majority of Tory MPs tow the line and many MPs realise the important of democracy and wil vote for invoking Article 50 on that basis. I'm sure the upper inbreds house will provide plenty of mischief until they are overruled by the House of Commons, but it maybe one of their final acts as Theresa May has promised to finish the reform of the House of the Inbreds in return if they act in this way.

[LC0112G]

As I said in the sentence after the part you highlighted. The legal and constitutional technicalities don't change the principle one iota.
To all intents and purposes, Parliament asked the people to take the decision and they took it. 

You may want the UK constitution to work like that, but it doesn't. Parliament asked the people for an opinion, but did not (and cannot) be bound by the result. Parliament is Sovereign.

If this note was sent to MP,s informing them the referendum was purely advisory, I'm amazed that this information wasn't leaked to the media.

The briefing note to MP's was published in full on June 3rd 2015 - almost a year before the referendum - and anyone who was interested could read it. It's here : http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf
Chapter 5 on page 25 is the important bit. Discussed at length on many websites, such as : https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

Still, its all pretty irrelevant really. I'm pretty sure that even most of the morons who inhabit the bubble, know better than to openly defy the will of the people who put them there.

Probably true, but it's important the Govt follow the rules, and it's disappointing that it's taken the Supreme Court ruling to make them do so.

In the UK the Parliament in Westminster is not Sovereign. It hasn't been for 45 years, but it soon will be. 

Nope - Westminster has always been sovereign.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Ok, back to the main point - if this is simply a hugely important matter of principle, why didn't anyone take similar action when previous Governments signed away their own powers to the EU by signing up to all the previous treaties, without acts of Parliament being voted into law first ?

I fail to see how Parliament is currently Sovereign, when laws made in a foreign country overrule / supersede laws we already have, which were made by Parliament.

[Kevin Wood]

Ok, back to the main point - if this is simply a hugely important matter of principle, why didn't anyone take similar action when previous Governments signed away their own powers to the EU by signing up to all the previous treaties, without acts of Parliament being voted into law first ?

I fail to see how Parliament is currently Sovereign, when laws made in a foreign country overrule / supersede laws we already have, which were made by Parliament.

The treaties that brought us into the EU were each ratified by bills that were voted on in parliament, unless I'm mistaken.

[RobG]

Ok, back to the main point - if this is simply a hugely important matter of principle, why didn't anyone take similar action when previous Governments signed away their own powers to the EU by signing up to all the previous treaties, without acts of Parliament being voted into law first ?

I fail to see how Parliament is currently Sovereign, when laws made in a foreign country overrule / supersede laws we already have, which were made by Parliament.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I imagine that most MP's will vote in a way that reflects how their constituents voted on June 23rd 2016. As they should.

This will mean an 'easy victory' for Brexit.

I'm a 'remainer' not a 'remoaner ' and think that Full fat Brexit should and will happen.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Ok, back to the main point - if this is simply a hugely important matter of principle, why didn't anyone take similar action when previous Governments signed away their own powers to the EU by signing up to all the previous treaties, without acts of Parliament being voted into law first ?

I fail to see how Parliament is currently Sovereign, when laws made in a foreign country overrule / supersede laws we already have, which were made by Parliament.

The treaties that brought us into the EU were each ratified by bills that were voted on in parliament, unless I'm mistaken.

I'm pretty sure (but willing to stand corrected) that they were signed using royal prerogative, and ratification and parliamentary consent took place after the event.

[Migalot]

Parliament agreed to hold a non binding referendum to gauge the view of the British public. There was a specific parliamentary note sent to all MP's stating that the referendum result would only be advisory. It's unlikely that the vote to hold a referendum would have passed in the commons with anything like a 6-1 majority if MP's have believed the result was binding.

Interestingly, though the pamphlet signed off by the PM and distributed to every house in the country clearly stated that the "...Government will implement the decision [of the Referendum]". Despite having ample time to tell the people that this was only "advisory", no-one ever mentioned it. I believe, despite the parliamentary note, this very sentence formed a legal contract between the government and the people. There is no written law that says all referendums must be advisory and this leaflet clearly, in fact, stated the opposite.

In any event, I find the legal challenge by this woman to be an insult. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Agreed. Furthermore, we were signed into the treaty of Rome using Royal prerogative, the referendum of the electorate came two years later.
Cameron speaking about the recent referendum in  his Chatham house speech said "It will be your decision whether we remain or leave the EU.
Your decision. No-one elses. Not Politicians, not Parliament, not lobby groups, not mine, just you.
Are we now expected to believe that not only did he know this was a bare faced lie, but everyone who sits in Parliament, including all the MP,s in favour of leave, knew he was lying ,but no-one said anything ?
An article by Barrister Michael Shrimpton has some interesting things to say on the subject.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/junk-law-judges/

[LC0112G]

I'm pretty sure (but willing to stand corrected) that they were signed using royal prerogative, and ratification and parliamentary consent took place after the event.

International treaties are negotiated and agreed to by the Government, but they don't become binding until an act of parliament is passed. If parliament votes down the act, then the treaty doesn't come into effect. However, once parliament passes an enabling bill, then only parliament can repeal that bill - that's the whole crux of the Supreme court case.

Parliament agreed to hold a non binding referendum to gauge the view of the British public. There was a specific parliamentary note sent to all MP's stating that the referendum result would only be advisory. It's unlikely that the vote to hold a referendum would have passed in the commons with anything like a 6-1 majority if MP's have believed the result was binding.

Interestingly, though the pamphlet signed off by the PM and distributed to every house in the country clearly stated that the "...Government will implement the decision [of the Referendum]". Despite having ample time to tell the people that this was only "advisory", no-one ever mentioned it. I believe, despite the parliamentary note, this very sentence formed a legal contract between the government and the people. There is no written law that says all referendums must be advisory and this leaflet clearly, in fact, stated the opposite.

You're mistaking the clams of a politician/political party with the law/constitution. I knew the referendum was advisory, and I'm pretty sure I even posted as much on here.

You are correct that "There is no written law that says all referendums must be advisory". The reason for this is that we have an unwritten constitution. One of the core principles of our constitution is that Parliament is sovereign, and as such no-one can do anything that binds this or any future Parliament into a course of action. Parliament is and must be free to come to it's own conclusion on any matter, and that's why referenda cannot be binding. The only exception is when parliament itself agrees to a binding referendum in the enabling act. The Scottish independence referendum, and the Proportional Voting referendum WERE both binding because parliament did insert words into the enabling bills agreeing the vote would be binding. However, the Brexit Referendum bill did NOT state that the result would be binding, and therefore it isn't/wasn't.