Supreme Court

[dingodan]

I don't understand.

 

[The Rivet]

I don't understand.

Arguments can do that to people. Befuddled I am!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

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.

If I was you I would stop thinking that right away - British referendums are always advisory. If they weren't the sovereignty of Parliament would be compromised, a possibility that led people as far apart as Thatcher and Attlee to describe them as instruments of fascism and, by implication, mob rule.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Ah, the mythical 'liberal elite' - the last soundbite of the truly meaningless.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the one the rest of us inhabit - the one where there is no precedent for what you want - if Parliament is to debate Brexit and have a say (as it's supposed to), new laws will needed to be drafted, Parliamentary time put aside, it then has to go to the House of Lords - and this is all assuming it gets safe passage. There's a decent chance it will be sent back and forth if Parliament don't agree to the terms.

Don't give a shit if you don't like it - that's how our Sovereign Parliament works; the one you so covetously voted for.

Well, the truth is I don't hear much bleating in the media from those who voted for Brexit, whilst incessantly I have heard from petulant remain voters, mostly from the professional and chattering classes about how we will fall off the end of the cliff, our economy doomed and the Uk becoming an international pariah. Liberal elite is a good title to give those who we hear from constantly. There is a sense of arrogance and entitlement over those who did not attend university or hold down a well paid job. They have been stopped in their tracks by the exit vote and appear to be having difficulty with it. As I stated previously, its all a storm in a teacup, article 50 will be triggered and the politicians will self congratulate themselves on what they have done or denegrate the deal reached, depending on their political point of view. Most politicians would vote to remain so the public must place their faith in the very people who opposed the majority vote and you tell me to live in the real world, ha ha.

You appear to have knowledge about how parliament works and state that you live in the real world, yet you say very little in your text and have to use expletives to get a point across. Not as informed as you make think you are, maybe you consider yourself to be one of the 'liberal elite' as you say, a soundbite of the 'truly meaningless'.

 

[Brighton Mod]

If that is your understanding of leaving then you are seriously deluded.

If leave the EU as on the ballot didn't mean that, what did it mean? Perhaps i'm dyslexic as well.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You don't understand what the court case is about do you ?

It is about following the law and not resorting to criminality.

We will still leave the EU. We will however do it in such a way that doesn't break the law.

What law are we breaking FFS, BG has it spot on ,a bunch of cry babys clutching at straws
regards
DR

 

[The Rivet]

What exactly do the complainants want? I'd like to know what the ulterior motive is. What do remoaners want from us leaving the EU?

 

[Half Time Pies]

If I was you I would stop thinking that right away - British referendums are always advisory. If they weren't the sovereignty of Parliament would be compromised, a possibility that led people as far apart as Thatcher and Attlee to describe them as instruments of fascism and, by implication, mob rule.

Actually thats not true, the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was not advisory.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I don't understand.

Where have you been since Brexit?

 

[ManOfSussex]

The sun always shines on tv....................

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

did we have all this bull shit when we joined the EU ................
regards
DR

 

[ManOfSussex]

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

What exactly do the complainants want? I'd like to know what the ulterior motive is. What do remoaners want from us leaving the EU?

they still want to be in the EU end of, a watered down version of out with as much EU influence they can get their grubby hands on
regards
DR

 

[beorhthelm]

It's clear you have no desire for Parliament to be Sovereign, otherwise you wouldn't be criticising the legal challenge.

If they come out in favour of the government's position - and it's something that no-one can see a legal precedent for - it will mean that the Judiciary has wilfully stripped Parliament of all its Soveriegnty; something it was granted 350-odd years ago. And therefore stripped it of something you so dearly hold true.

It will leave the Prime Minister in a position to use whatever executive powers they wish - on a whim - without there being a need for Parliament.

Not going to happen, is it?

hold on there. firstly, if the court does find in favour of the government, it will not give the PM power to act on a whim, it will be because they judges determine there are powers or precedent for the PM to act upon such matters as defined in the ruling on the case. secondly, i hope you'll respect the verdict of the court, as it seems like youre assuming an outcome.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

What law are we breaking FFS, BG has it spot on ,a bunch of cry babys clutching at straws
regards
DR

You don't understand the court case either do you ?

Firstly, we don't have the verdict yet. If the judges rule that all is ok, then happy days, all is above board. No laws broken. Winner.

If the judges rule that the Prime Minister is breaking the law if she enacts article 50 without getting an Act of Parliament, then that she must get that Act passed.

Brexit still goes ahead, the Act will get passed. And again happy days, all is above board. No laws broken. Winner.

It's win-win isn't it ?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Indeed.

Out is out.

No strings or preconditions attached.

The possibilities are infinite. Let's hope our ACE negotiators bring back the best ones.

To be fair to PPF, he was offered a chance to vote 'out' and did, because 'out' is, to him, more important than the terms or details. And this is what the referendum offered. If I were he, I would be saying 'finger out, fire the gun'. I personally favoured remain, mostly because there was absolutely not sniff of any plan with respect to the leaving process. That was the arrogance and stupidity of Cameron, assuming and gambling all in winning. But we had the chance to vote and Brexit with no need for a plan won the vote. End of story.

If I were a Brexiter, of the views of PPF, I would be pretty annoyed the gun hasn't been fired. What is the point of waiting to develop a negociating path, when the outcome must be Brexit? We fire the gun, then spend the best part of 2 years asking for whatever we can get. That cn be the only plan, surely? Arguably we may have a few things that the Europeans might want to negociate for. I can't think of anything off the top of my head; maybe access to Europe's financial powerhouse - London; but I am sure Berlin, Frankfurt etc would be willing to 'step in'.

No, if you voted Brexit because Brexit was more important to you than anything, then you'd expect us to be Brexited by now. If you voted Brexit for some other reason (such as thinking it may push Europe into a renegociation, as Boris apparently did) then you are . . . a complete ****wit, anyway. Brexit means Brexit. Even Corbyn understand this, which is why he has made it clar that Labour will not manouvre to stymie the gun firing . . . .

My view? Treeze has no option other than to pull up her leather trousers, tell Europe 'no free movement of peoples' and take the 'no deals on trade, then' on her chin. If she has any rabbits up her leather trousers to offer the Europeans, then I'd be delighted to know about it. After a few years, things will settle down.

The thing that gets me, though, is given that after god knows how many years of Tory government, with non-EU migration more that 100K (more than ten times the government target) with this already ALL UNDER OUR ABSOLUTE CONTROL, how is 'taking back control of our borders' (what? see above) going to make a jot of difference? We will lose free trade and will still be too useless and incompetant to control our borders - because that's what we do. Maybe that's where UKIP may gain . . . a promise to control our borders with massive queues, visas like we are China, and guns and dogs. It would work, and it would be what plenty of Brexit voters would like more than anything. If that's what they get, that's democrasy folks. Pull up your liberal pants and live with it (as I will have to do - can't be arsed to campaign against it; Attila and Jeremy Action won't save me, and it's hard to batter determined folk into submission with nothing more than a rolled up copy of the Guardian).

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You don't understand the court case either do you ?

Firstly, we don't have the verdict yet. If the judges rule that all is ok, then happy days, all is above board. No laws broken. Winner.

If the judges rule that the Prime Minister is breaking the law if she enacts article 50 without getting an Act of Parliament, then that she must get that Act passed.

Brexit still goes ahead, the Act will get passed. And again happy days, all is above board. No laws broken. Winner.

It's win-win isn't it ?

but you're already counting your chickens
regards
DR

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

You don't understand the court case either do you ?

Firstly, we don't have the verdict yet. If the judges rule that all is ok, then happy days, all is above board. No laws broken. Winner.

If the judges rule that the Prime Minister is breaking the law if she enacts article 50 without getting an Act of Parliament, then that she must get that Act passed.

Brexit still goes ahead, the Act will get passed. And again happy days, all is above board. No laws broken. Winner.

It's win-win isn't it ?

NO because imo the way we entered the EU/common market in the very first place is the part of Brexit most open to legal debate......but hey what is my opinion worth anyway.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

To be fair to PPF, he was offered a chance to vote 'out' and did, because 'out' is, to him, more important than the terms or details. And this is what the referendum offered. If I were he, I would be saying 'finger out, fire the gun'. I personally favoured remain, mostly because there was absolutely not sniff of any plan with respect to the leaving process. That was the arrogance and stupidity of Cameron, assuming and gambling all in winning. But we had the chance to vote and Brexit with no need for a plan won the vote. End of story.

If I were a Brexiter, of the views of PPF, I would be pretty annoyed the gun hasn't been fired. What is the point of waiting to develop a negociating path, when the outcome must be Brexit? We fire the gun, then spend the best part of 2 years asking for whatever we can get. That cn be the only plan, surely? Arguably we may have a few things that the Europeans might want to negociate for. I can't think of anything off the top of my head; maybe access to Europe's financial powerhouse - London; but I am sure Berlin, Frankfurt etc would be willing to 'step in'.

No, if you voted Brexit because Brexit was more important to you than anything, then you'd expect us to be Brexited by now. If you voted Brexit for some other reason (such as thinking it may push Europe into a renegociation, as Boris apparently did) then you are . . . a complete ****wit, anyway. Brexit means Brexit. Even Corbyn understand this, which is why he has made it clar that Labour will not manouvre to stymie the gun firing . . . .

My view? Treeze has no option other than to pull up her leather trousers, tell Europe 'no free movement of peoples' and take the 'no deals on trade, then' on her chin. If she has any rabbits up her leather trousers to offer the Europeans, then I'd be delighted to know about it. After a few years, things will settle down.

The thing that gets me, though, is given that after god knows how many years of Tory government, with non-EU migration more that 100K (more than ten times the government target) with this already ALL UNDER OUR ABSOLUTE CONTROL, how is 'taking back control of our borders' (what? see above) going to make a jot of difference? We will lose free trade and will still be too useless and incompetant to control our borders - because that's what we do. Maybe that's where UKIP may gain . . . a promise to control our borders with massive queues, visas like we are China, and guns and dogs. It would work, and it would be what plenty of Brexit voters would like more than anything. If that's what they get, that's democrasy folks. Pull up your liberal pants and live with it (as I will have to do - can't be arsed to campaign against it; Attila and Jeremy Action won't save me, and it's hard to batter determined folk into submission with nothing more than a rolled up copy of the Guardian).

Honest post Harry
regards
DR

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

did we have all this bull shit when we joined the EU ................
regards
DR

Are you not old enough to remember?

Yes we did. BUT all the whining anti EU noises were coming from the left. They were ignored by the tory press (most of the press) which was in favour of joining. They were accused of narrow minded protectionism, against the common market because it would undermine union power and force the lazy british worker to get his finger out.

And who was in favour of the common market?



This has nothing to do with how the EU morphed into a quangocrasy, but it does answer your question