DS Forums

 
 

Supreme Court Brexit Appeal


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-12-2016, 20:52
BanglaRoad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
I only saw two questions on the ballot paper.

1- Remain in the EU
2- Leave the EU.

There was no "Let parliament decide" option.
There was nothing on the paper saying that parliamentary procedure was to be cast aside.
BanglaRoad is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 05-12-2016, 20:54
BanglaRoad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.
Are you questioning the integrity of the judges?
That's a dangerous road to go down.
BanglaRoad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 20:56
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,766
Parliament has consented to the supremacy of EU law. This is basic stuff.
The question has always been that that may be within the power of Parliament to do however on most occasions when the Constitution as regards the electorate is changing it is taken to the Nation normally as a policy in a general election or in a referendum. The whole mess stems from the fact that the electorate were never consulted apart from 75 and in terms of misleading the electorate that was certainly no better than the last one. Mastricht and Lisbon and the electorate were specifically excluded despite massive Constitutional change.
The whole point of Parliament is that they should be taking the electorate with them as they are representatives of the electorate, not leaders of the electorate.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 20:57
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.
Its a pretty desperate ploy to question their integrity.
Leaves a bad taste.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 20:58
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
No you don't like debate.

If you do go and debate with other posters in this thread; you dont seem to have check out your responses in this thread.

You have no reason to report me
Look, I apologise if I offended you, that wasn't my intention (though I'm not entirely sure how or why, but hey...) and I can't see any reason for you to report me either. And there it is.

I prefer to keep firm but ultimately friendly debate open, luckylegs, but your choice.
If you quote my post don't leave some out; you're sad.

Another passive aggressive post again.

No more responses from me; my complete post below.

No you don't like debate.

If you do go and debate with other posters in this thread; you dont seem to have check out your responses in this thread.

You have no reason to report me don't start with the passive aggressive matey boy it is very transparent.
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 20:59
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
Are you questioning the integrity of the judges?
That's a dangerous road to go down.
Why?
We are allowed to see information in the public domain about their affiliations and opinions , nothing wrong with that
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:00
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
I only saw two questions on the ballot paper.

1- Remain in the EU
2- Leave the EU.

There was no "Let parliament decide" option.
Was there a "Give the Prime Minister presidential powers" option on yours?
No, mine neither.
This whole process is just another indicator of how utterly rubbish politicians are at thinking beyond the next pay day.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:01
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,231
Even Farage has acknowledged that it was advisory.
what voters were told by Cameron or Farage doesn't seem to matter legally. its about what Parliament allowed and required. .

The Government's case on this bit looks convincing so far. There's nothing in any bill establishing or post the legislation creating a role for a50, saying they need to vote on getting out, and the government speeches made it clear, arguing for the referendum bill, that there would be no second voting on the public vote - the public would decide.

There's also nothing about ratifying any decision to leave - only to enter - a treaty, and nor is this the intyernational norm.

There's some talk about the situation post 1972, but thats counterd by the argument that things changed after - and voters won't understand why their choice is undermined - by some legal construct that dates from 45 years ago and has been contradicted since. .
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:01
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
Why?
We are allowed to see information in the public domain about their affiliations and opinions , nothing wrong with that
Agree.
Its insinuating that they are not up to impartial judgement that is weak.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:05
BanglaRoad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
Why?
We are allowed to see information in the public domain about their affiliations and opinions , nothing wrong with that
Why are you questioning their Integrity?
Trust in the legal and judicial system is one of the things that underpins a stable country where we accept the decisions of the courts.
You need something a lot more substantial than Daily Mail headlines before you start crying foul.
BanglaRoad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:09
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
Why are you questioning their Integrity?
Trust in the legal and judicial system is one of the things that underpins a stable country where we accept the decisions of the courts.
You need something a lot more substantial than Daily Mail headlines before you start crying foul.
I suppose its easier to do that than follow the legal arguments.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:09
Orri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 9,078
Along with


'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide'

Seemed pretty straight forward to me

The Cameron Government ended when he resigned. The May Government has the same freedom from obligation to fulfill that pledge as any other in that no Government may bind it's successors. I might be wrong but seem to recall it's Cameron who first put forward the idea that the Royal Prerogative was applicable.
Orri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:11
Zack06
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 27,438
The court case is about retrospectively adding the third option to the ballot paper.
I don't think anyone in court is disputing that the UK is leaving the EU.

What is being questioned is the framework of democracy that the UK has been built upon for centuries and the mechanism that allows the decision to be made, since the referendum itself was merely advisory.

If anything, the court case is further strengthening the "will of the people" by enforcing the concept of "sovereignty" that featured so heavily in the referendum campaign.
Zack06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:21
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
No you don't like debate.

If you do go and debate with other posters in this thread; you dont seem to have check out your responses in this thread.

You have no reason to report me don't start with the passive agressive matey boy it is very transparent.
Do you know what 'passive aggressive' means?
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:21
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
Why are you questioning their Integrity?
Trust in the legal and judicial system is one of the things that underpins a stable country where we accept the decisions of the courts.
You need something a lot more substantial than Daily Mail headlines before you start crying foul.
Well I'm sorry but there have been some pretty awful comments made by judges and some very odd sentencing in recent years. Are we supposed to not question ? Of course we are. It's silly to suggest that we accept their decisions without question
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:23
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
I don't think anyone in court is disputing that the UK is leaving the EU.

What is being questioned is the framework of democracy that the UK has been built upon for centuries and the mechanism that allows the decision to be made, since the referendum itself was merely advisory.

If anything, the court case is further strengthening the "will of the people" by enforcing the concept of "sovereignty" that featured so heavily in the referendum campaign.

I repeat

'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:28
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
Do you know what 'passive aggressive' means?
Yes I do.
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:29
BanglaRoad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
Well I'm sorry but there have been some pretty awful comments made by judges and some very odd sentencing in recent years. Are we supposed to not question ? Of course we are. It's silly to suggest that we accept their decisions without question
Question them on their comments and sentencing by all means.
But to question their Integrity before they have heard the case is a totally different matter.
BTW have you worked out yet who is putting "your side" of the appeal yet?
Consider this. If you don't know which side of the case someone in a court case is speaking for then it hardly puts you in a position to question any of the judges decisions.
BanglaRoad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:31
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
I repeat

'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide
And I repeat
The government can't implement anything. It can only propose things that are then voted for or against by parliament.
You really should try to understand this basic core of our democracy. Many people died for this system of accountability and representation many centuries ago.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:32
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
How was the FM being 'passive aggressive' with you?
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:33
Aftershow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,568
I quote

'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide'

The govt clearly didn't intend the referendum to be advisory only, the excuse trotted out by the Remainers.
If they didn't intend it to only be advisory, they should've written the legislation so that it wasn't only advisory.
Aftershow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:35
Thiswillbefun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,595
Along with


'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide'

Seemed pretty straight forward to me
It was actually made clear that the referendum was advisory only and does not need to be acted upon. The PM cannot throw aside the legal process for posturing purposes.
Thiswillbefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:36
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,751
How was the FM being 'passive aggressive' with you?
I was wondering that myself; perhaps someone just got out the wrong side of bed today

Anyway, life is too short.
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:36
seellee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,420
I repeat

'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide
So what? Legally that means nothing.

If people want to be mad at anyone they should be mad at a Conservative government that failed to make the referendum legally binding.
seellee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 21:38
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
If they didn't intend it to only be advisory, they should've written the legislation so that it wasn't only advisory.
Exactly. Only the status of the referendum has any actual legal clout, not fibs in a tory government leaflet. And the EU ref was impotent even when compared with the AV ref which at least had binding status.
They won't accept this of course.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39.