Supreme Court

[Brighton Mod]

It might suit for point of view today to force through Brexit without parliament, but next week the government might want to force through something you don't like and then would you br happy?

The law is the law

Exactly, just like the lieing Blair and his cohorts on going to war with George Bush against Sadam, politicians are not to be trusted whatever colour they represent. In the Brexit case they gave the people the chance to decide and they did, thus making the politicians irrelevant and look how they have reacted. They are now scrambling and struggling to regain so semblance of authority, but have lost all respect, along with the media and those who are supposed to present balanced arguements to us.

 

[Murray 17]

..we all knew the referendum was advisory months before the vote. Why have people forgotten that?

I followed it very closely and I didn't realise it was advisory.

I'm starting to think that the government put this little clause in as a 'get-out', if things didn't go their way.

 

[Del Fenner]

I'll say again, to the Remainers, why does it matter who triggers the Article?

Do you think that a government minister should have absolute power, or do you think that only Parliament should have ultimate power?

Can you not see any danger in a government doing whatever it likes without being accountable?

 

[JetsetJimbo]

The 'advisory' part of this has only emerged since the Referendum. If the vote had gone the other way, this word would never have been used.

Nope, you just weren't paying attention. For example:

Legally the referendum is advisory

-- February 2016

We might start with the EU Referendum Act, which received royal assent just before Christmas. It sets out the referendum rules, so could be expected to define the effect of a vote either way. Alas, it does not: it makes no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect.

That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result.

-- January 2016

 

[Murray 17]

Do you think that a government minister should have absolute power, or do you think that only Parliament should have ultimate power?

Can you not see any danger in a government doing whatever it likes without being accountable?

If the government were to suddenly try to bring back, let's say, capital punishment, of course it must be challenged.

But in this case it is following the instruction of the British public.

To me, this whole case revolves around the losing side not accepting the result.

 

[Del Fenner]

If the government were to suddenly try to bring back, let's say, capital punishment, of course it must be challenged.

But in this case it is following the instruction of the British public.

To me, this whole case revolves around the losing side not accepting the result.

So if it's something that you approve of they should have the power, but for things that you disagree with, they shouldn't?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If the government were to suddenly try to bring back, let's say, capital punishment, of course it must be challenged.

But in this case it is following the instruction of the British public.

To me, this whole case revolves around the losing side not accepting the result.

The referendum was advisory by the way.

It is 'the advice' of the British public, not actually 'the instruction'.

This is just muddying the thinking though.

It is clear, it is about following the law.

 

[Big_Unit]

What I don't understand is that, once Article 50 has been triggered, there is no going back. So if we don't get the deal we want, no amount of cross-party influence or Parliamentary debate will make a jot of difference.

Actually, on a technical point, there is a 'going back' - we can rescind Article 50 at any point between it being triggered and the final exit from the EU.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If the government were to suddenly try to bring back, let's say, capital punishment, of course it must be challenged.

But in this case it is following the instruction of the British public.

To me, this whole case revolves around the losing side not accepting the result.

Parliament voted in the Referendum Act of 2015 to make it that way. That's all MPs not just the government.

 

[Fungus]

Risking a slight tangent...

"How much has this cost Gina Millers husband?" - well, if they're married, surely it's THEIR money not his?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

This is not Judiciary v People; not Judiciary v. Government; not Judiciary v. Parliament; not Parliament v. Government ; not Parliament v People. It's just about an interpretation of the constitution.

 

[Notters]

"Leavemoaners"

Lemons?

 

[Notters]

Actually, on a technical point, there is a 'going back' - we can rescind Article 50 at any point between it being triggered and the final exit from the EU.

Beat me to it!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...omic-plan-legal-trade-agreement-a7231446.html

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Exactly, just like the lieing Blair and his cohorts on going to war with George Bush against Sadam, politicians are not to be trusted whatever colour they represent. In the Brexit case they gave the people the chance to decide and they did, thus making the politicians irrelevant and look how they have reacted. They are now scrambling and struggling to regain so semblance of authority, but have lost all respect, along with the media and those who are supposed to present balanced arguements to us.

You voted for a divorce you did not vote for what the settlment should be. What is being argued in the courts is that Parliament should have a right to scrutinise the settlement because the outcome will affect EVERYBODY in the country not just the 17 million who voted leave. Politicians, therefore, are not irrelevent because it is they who are having to determine what the settlement will be.

 

[Wardy's twin]

People are forgetting that the referundum was driven by Cameron as a ruse to put his right wing Eurosceptics in place. He WAS always going to win and no one thought it would matter about detail hence the mess we are in. Had he done the sensible thing and put in to a parliamentary vote then we would not be talking about brexit.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I posted this opinion piece in the refrendum thread from today's Times which in effect supports Brexit and the legal case and why:

We must stand up to the populist blackmail

Daniel Finkelstein

Veiled threats over judges’ Brexit ruling show why movements that claim to speak for ‘the people’ are so dangerous.



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/co...mail-sqgj8nk8h

Very impressed....

 

[Wardy's twin]

The 'advisory' part of this has only emerged since the Referendum. If the vote had gone the other way, this word would never have been used.

this refererdum was to appease right wing Tories so had it been a no then the next action would have been to either oust Cameron or for the right to join forces with Ukip to gain control of Parliament.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

this refererdum was to appease right wing Tories so had it been a no then the next action would have been to either oust Cameron or for the right to join forces with Ukip to gain control of Parliament.

The referendum was held to appease opponents of the EU a generation of which had been denied any choice as to whether to belong to it. And don't forget Mr Corbyn (and traditional trades unions) who was a lifelong opponent of the EU up until the last minute.

 

[Murray 17]

So if it's something that you approve of they should have the power, but for things that you disagree with, they shouldn't?

Not at all.

Bringing back capital punishment on a whim is one thing, implementing the result of a referendum, the contents of which had been debated in public for months, is quite another.

Interesting you mention, as a Remainer no doubt, about choosing which aspects of political debate/implementation of laws etc, one chooses to follow...

 

[happypig]

You voted for a divorce you did not vote for what the settlment should be. What is being argued in the courts is that Parliament should have a right to scrutinise the settlement because the outcome will affect EVERYBODY in the country not just the 17 million who voted leave. Politicians, therefore, are not irrelevent because it is they who are having to determine what the settlement will be.

This.
17.4m voted to leave, 16.1 voted to remain. 13m did not vote. 14m were not eligible to vote.
Parliament must take account of those who did not or could not vote.