The High Court said otherwise. Which is the whole point of this case and appeal.
In any case, an amendment to The Scotland Act 1998 would still be required.
The whole point of this case is the appeal against the high court ruling that article 50 can't be triggered by royal perogative which afaik has nothing to do with the Scotland Act or the Great Repeal Act.
Like I said if the Scotland Act needs amending it needs amending but that has nothing to do with trigerring article 50.
You need to pay more attention.
Read post #35.
I did read it and it has nothing to do with the point I was making so perhaps you need to pay more attention.
The whole point of this case is the appeal against the high court ruling that article 50 can't be triggered by royal perogative which afaik has nothing to do with the Scotland Act or the Great Repeal Act.
Like I said if the Scotland Act needs amending it needs amending but that has nothing to do with trigerring article 50.
Of course the proposed "Great Repeal Act" is relevant. If you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing to try and discuss this issue with you. You obviously have your pro-Brexit blinkers set to maximum.
I did read it and it has nothing to do with the point I was making so perhaps you need to pay more attention.
It has everything to do with it.
I'm not repeating the point. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
Of course the proposed "Great Repeal Act" is relevant. If you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing to try and discuss this issue with you. You obviously have your pro-Brexit blinkers set to maximum.
It has everything to do with it.
I'm not repeating the point. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
The Great Reform Act is irrelevant to triggering article 50 and this court case because it doesn't trigger it but if you wish to pretend it is then feel free.
You appear to be unable to actually follow a discussion so I'll leave it there.
The Great Reform Act is irrelevant to triggering article 50 and this case because it doesn't do trigger it but if you wish to pretend it does then feel free.
I never said it would trigger Article 50. You're just making things up now.
You appear to be unable to actually follow a discussion so I'll leave it there.
I's sure JJ doesn't. But he may object to 'taffy' or some other word considered derogatory in Wales.
'Scotch' is viewed negatively in Scotland - they prefer 'Scottish' (or Scots when referring to law)
Therefore non-arseholes tend to respect that, and also use 'Scottish'.
I's sure JJ doesn't. But he may object to 'taffy' or some other word considered derogatory in Wales.
'Scotch' is viewed negatively in Scotland - they prefer 'Scottish' (or Scots when referring to law)
Therefore non-arseholes tend to respect that, and also use 'Scottish'.
Cue apoplectic Leavers throwing toys out of the pram.
Something as big as leaving the EU needs proper detailed consideration, especially seeing as May et al don't have a damn clue how to go about it.
Pointless.
The outline requirements, and the consequences , are obvious.
The negotiating priorities can't be stated , because they become unobtainable as soon as they are stated.
There can be no minimal requirements set , because what we get depends almost entirely on the other side, and our negotiating hand is almost non existent.
May is doing exactly what she can and should do - getting the best compromise she can , that maximizes the number of satisfied voters.
She's stuck with the 3 amigos- because the deal has to be sold to the 52%
The rest is all pointless political maneuvering by the SNP and Labour, and the Liberals trying to secure a second referendum to reverse the vote - about a decade too early.
Then let the Scottish government ignore them at their peril.
Remember Scotland has done nothing but petition to leave the EU for the last few years and now we are, they start kicking up.
As I say, Digital Spy logic at its finest. You sort of give up trying to have a grown up conversation about politics on this politics forum, as its impossible. I gave up ages ago. It would be fine if people actually stuck to decent conversation and facts, and not twist them to something which blatantly isn't the case, but that will never happen on here.
Let Saint Obama also have his say if he wants to , this court case solves jack all , the government are ready to table a motion in parliament on article 50 so speak up remainers, after all we're all paying for this expensive nonsense!
Project Farce sounds more like it because that is what this case has descended into.
No, because there will be no delay in the determination of this case. All that will happen is that the three devolved regional governments will be able to make their own statements to the Supreme Court about this matter. It's better doing it this way then having yet another case brought by any one of the devolved governments about the lack of consultation which would only delay things even more.
This is just a pragmatic and sensible decision to involve these governments.
The whole point of this case is the appeal against the high court ruling that article 50 can't be triggered by royal perogative which afaik has nothing to do with the Scotland Act or the Great Repeal Act.
.
The Royal Prerogative is actually devolved as far as devolved matters. In those cases it would be up to Sturgeon as First Minister to advise the Queen on its use. She may also advise against its being used.
The present state of play is that it's legally recognised that triggering A50 might result in changes domestically which Westminster would not have full control of. As such it's outwith the remit of Royal Prerogative. In addition as no case has been heard in Scotland it might be seen that as the case has been moved to a court with jurisdiction over the entire UK time might be saved by having a decision for the whole of the UK. Otherwise you might have a contradiction where an appeal under the laws of England and Wales was successful but one according to Scots' Law wasn't. The outcome would be that the Queen might be unable to follow two contradictory recommendations. Or that any A50 notification delivered via RP would not be legally binding on Scotland.
The trouble here is that it's not Brexit being frustrated. It's an attempt at forcing through a hard Brexit even though there's video footage of Farage and other Leave advocates specifically mentioning the Norway option. May had 199 of her own MPs behind her based on her campaign to them. She has yet to be formally endorsed by her own party. Based in that lack of support she seems determined to avoid democracy.
As to the 52% being kept happy. There seems to be a horrendous inability on the part of some, mainly in the Conservatives, to insist that political opinion can't change and that there's some kind of knock out involved where once defeated you no longer get any input in further decision making. So by concentrating on only a fraction of the electorate they set themselves up for this kind of fall.
You know, as this whole debacle becomes more farcical each passing day, I don't think that in all my adult life have I been considered as so irrelevant and my vote as worthless as it is today.
For all you gloating Remainers, try and imagine how you'd feel if you had voted for something, was part of a majority and then had the minority from each direction trying to undermine the very thing you voted for.
I am totally embarassesd, ashamed and actually extremely depressed to be British these days. We used to be a nation of fair play and courtesy. Now we are a nation of spoilt, tantrum throwing social media abusers who believe the world revolves around them.
Why is the "appeal" turning into a whole new case? It is no longer a simple appeal about A50, it is a transparent and obvious ploy to overturn what 52% voted for.
I wonder how Scots would have felt if they voted "Yes" in 2014 and then a group of sulking "No" voters tried to thwart that decision by trying every trick in the book to get their own way?
I no longer feel like a valued British citizen with a free voice and vote. My vote has been deemed unworthy.
You know, as this whole debacle becomes more farcical each passing day, I don't think that in all my adult life have I been considered as so irrelevant and my vote as worthless as it is today.
For all you gloating Remainers, try and imagine how you'd feel if you had voted for something, was part of a majority and then had the minority from each direction trying to undermine the very thing you voted for.
I am totally embarassesd, ashamed and actually extremely depressed to be British these days. We used to be a nation of fair play and courtesy. Now we are a nation of spoilt, tantrum throwing social media abusers who believe the world revolves around them.
Why is the "appeal" turning into a whole new case? It is no longer a simple appeal to about A50, it is a transparent and obvious ploy to overturn what 52% voted for.
I wonder how Scots would have felt if they voted "Yes" in 2014 and then a group of sulking "No" voters tried to thwart that decision by trying every trick in the book to get their own way?
I no longer feel like a valued British citizen with a free voice and vote. My vote has been deemed unworthy.
It's nothing of the sort - it's a procedural and consultation issue and this court case need never have arisen in the first place had the May government done things in a more consensual and proper consultative manner. The government tried to pull a fast one and act beyond its powers - that's the real legal issue here (and not the matter of Brexit itself).
It's nothing of the sort - it's a procedural and consultation issue and this court case need never have arisen in the first place had the May government done things in a more consensual and proper consultative manner. The government tried to pull a fast one and act beyond its powers - that's the real legal issue here (and not the matter of Brexit itself).
It's nothing of the sort - it's a procedural and consultation issue and this court case need never have arisen in the first place had the May government done things in a more consensual and proper consultative manner. The government tried to pull a fast one and act beyond its powers - that's the real legal issue here (and not the matter of Brexit itself).
And you know damn well that if the procedural consultation rules in favour of Brexit, there will be another 20 different ways of trying to stop it.
As I say, Digital Spy logic at its finest. You sort of give up trying to have a grown up conversation about politics on this politics forum, as its impossible. I gave up ages ago. It would be fine if people actually stuck to decent conversation and facts, and not twist them to something which blatantly isn't the case, but that will never happen on here.
Did the SNP not have as its main standpoint, the leaving of the UK?
Does the leaving of the UK not mean the leaving of the EU?
Be grown up and realise that the above two statements are linked.
And you know damn well that if the procedural consultation rules in favour of Brexit, there will be another 20 different ways of trying to stop it.
No! Cannot you and others understand the actual legal issue here? I will have to repeat it again and again until it gets through. This entire matter is not about Brexit or the merits thereof.
It is 100% wholly about how the government chose to proceed in this matter (and it could have been any other subject - it's actually immaterial). The government chose (on very poor or sycophantic legal advice) to try and circumvent established conventions and procedures and take a quick way which avoided the involvement of parliament.
If the final Supreme Court goes against the government then all they'll have to do is consult parliament (which is what they should have done in the first place). Since the leaders of both the largest parties have gone on record to say that they will not block Brexit then Brexit will almost certainly happen - it's just that parliament (both houses) must be involved and consulted.
Governments get regularly challenged in the courts because they don't do things properly and this is just one of many examples. This case is only about doing things properly and in accordance with existing conventions and not about the subject matter itself.
I fully expect that Brexit will take place but it'll have to be done properly this time (assuming that the Supreme Court ruling goes against the government) and the only difference is that things will perhaps take a bit longer, that's all.
Comments
The whole point of this case is the appeal against the high court ruling that article 50 can't be triggered by royal perogative which afaik has nothing to do with the Scotland Act or the Great Repeal Act.
Like I said if the Scotland Act needs amending it needs amending but that has nothing to do with trigerring article 50.
I did read it and it has nothing to do with the point I was making so perhaps you need to pay more attention.
Of course the proposed "Great Repeal Act" is relevant. If you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing to try and discuss this issue with you. You obviously have your pro-Brexit blinkers set to maximum.
It has everything to do with it.
I'm not repeating the point. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
The Great Reform Act is irrelevant to triggering article 50 and this court case because it doesn't trigger it but if you wish to pretend it is then feel free.
You appear to be unable to actually follow a discussion so I'll leave it there.
I never said it would trigger Article 50. You're just making things up now.
No, that's you.
Not really. Plaid Cymru constituencies all voted Remain.
Don't forget 'hop'!
I's sure JJ doesn't. But he may object to 'taffy' or some other word considered derogatory in Wales.
'Scotch' is viewed negatively in Scotland - they prefer 'Scottish' (or Scots when referring to law)
Therefore non-arseholes tend to respect that, and also use 'Scottish'.
You are calling me an arsehole?
Is not Plaid Cymru's job not to represent all of Wales?
Or is it just a one policy party?
I don't know. I was merely pointing out your mistake in saying they would suffer electorally. They wouldn't.
Pointless.
The outline requirements, and the consequences , are obvious.
The negotiating priorities can't be stated , because they become unobtainable as soon as they are stated.
There can be no minimal requirements set , because what we get depends almost entirely on the other side, and our negotiating hand is almost non existent.
May is doing exactly what she can and should do - getting the best compromise she can , that maximizes the number of satisfied voters.
She's stuck with the 3 amigos- because the deal has to be sold to the 52%
The rest is all pointless political maneuvering by the SNP and Labour, and the Liberals trying to secure a second referendum to reverse the vote - about a decade too early.
As I say, Digital Spy logic at its finest. You sort of give up trying to have a grown up conversation about politics on this politics forum, as its impossible. I gave up ages ago. It would be fine if people actually stuck to decent conversation and facts, and not twist them to something which blatantly isn't the case, but that will never happen on here.
She said "Before March, before the end of March"
No, because there will be no delay in the determination of this case. All that will happen is that the three devolved regional governments will be able to make their own statements to the Supreme Court about this matter. It's better doing it this way then having yet another case brought by any one of the devolved governments about the lack of consultation which would only delay things even more.
This is just a pragmatic and sensible decision to involve these governments.
The Royal Prerogative is actually devolved as far as devolved matters. In those cases it would be up to Sturgeon as First Minister to advise the Queen on its use. She may also advise against its being used.
The present state of play is that it's legally recognised that triggering A50 might result in changes domestically which Westminster would not have full control of. As such it's outwith the remit of Royal Prerogative. In addition as no case has been heard in Scotland it might be seen that as the case has been moved to a court with jurisdiction over the entire UK time might be saved by having a decision for the whole of the UK. Otherwise you might have a contradiction where an appeal under the laws of England and Wales was successful but one according to Scots' Law wasn't. The outcome would be that the Queen might be unable to follow two contradictory recommendations. Or that any A50 notification delivered via RP would not be legally binding on Scotland.
The trouble here is that it's not Brexit being frustrated. It's an attempt at forcing through a hard Brexit even though there's video footage of Farage and other Leave advocates specifically mentioning the Norway option. May had 199 of her own MPs behind her based on her campaign to them. She has yet to be formally endorsed by her own party. Based in that lack of support she seems determined to avoid democracy.
As to the 52% being kept happy. There seems to be a horrendous inability on the part of some, mainly in the Conservatives, to insist that political opinion can't change and that there's some kind of knock out involved where once defeated you no longer get any input in further decision making. So by concentrating on only a fraction of the electorate they set themselves up for this kind of fall.
For all you gloating Remainers, try and imagine how you'd feel if you had voted for something, was part of a majority and then had the minority from each direction trying to undermine the very thing you voted for.
I am totally embarassesd, ashamed and actually extremely depressed to be British these days. We used to be a nation of fair play and courtesy. Now we are a nation of spoilt, tantrum throwing social media abusers who believe the world revolves around them.
Why is the "appeal" turning into a whole new case? It is no longer a simple appeal about A50, it is a transparent and obvious ploy to overturn what 52% voted for.
I wonder how Scots would have felt if they voted "Yes" in 2014 and then a group of sulking "No" voters tried to thwart that decision by trying every trick in the book to get their own way?
I no longer feel like a valued British citizen with a free voice and vote. My vote has been deemed unworthy.
It's nothing of the sort - it's a procedural and consultation issue and this court case need never have arisen in the first place had the May government done things in a more consensual and proper consultative manner. The government tried to pull a fast one and act beyond its powers - that's the real legal issue here (and not the matter of Brexit itself).
If you say so.
And you know damn well that if the procedural consultation rules in favour of Brexit, there will be another 20 different ways of trying to stop it.
Did the SNP not have as its main standpoint, the leaving of the UK?
Does the leaving of the UK not mean the leaving of the EU?
Be grown up and realise that the above two statements are linked.
No! Cannot you and others understand the actual legal issue here? I will have to repeat it again and again until it gets through. This entire matter is not about Brexit or the merits thereof.
It is 100% wholly about how the government chose to proceed in this matter (and it could have been any other subject - it's actually immaterial). The government chose (on very poor or sycophantic legal advice) to try and circumvent established conventions and procedures and take a quick way which avoided the involvement of parliament.
If the final Supreme Court goes against the government then all they'll have to do is consult parliament (which is what they should have done in the first place). Since the leaders of both the largest parties have gone on record to say that they will not block Brexit then Brexit will almost certainly happen - it's just that parliament (both houses) must be involved and consulted.
Governments get regularly challenged in the courts because they don't do things properly and this is just one of many examples. This case is only about doing things properly and in accordance with existing conventions and not about the subject matter itself.
I fully expect that Brexit will take place but it'll have to be done properly this time (assuming that the Supreme Court ruling goes against the government) and the only difference is that things will perhaps take a bit longer, that's all.