|
||||||||
Supreme Court Brexit Appeal |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#351 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#352 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
|
Quote:
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.
That's a dangerous road to go down. |
|
|
|
|
|
#353 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,766
|
Quote:
Parliament has consented to the supremacy of EU law. This is basic stuff.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#354 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
|
Quote:
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.
Leaves a bad taste. |
|
|
|
|
|
#355 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
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. Another passive aggressive post again. No more responses from me; my complete post below. Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#356 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
|
Quote:
Are you questioning the integrity of the judges?
That's a dangerous road to go down. We are allowed to see information in the public domain about their affiliations and opinions , nothing wrong with that |
|
|
|
|
|
#357 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
|
Quote:
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. No, mine neither. This whole process is just another indicator of how utterly rubbish politicians are at thinking beyond the next pay day. |
|
|
|
|
|
#358 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,231
|
Quote:
Even Farage has acknowledged that it was advisory.
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. . |
|
|
|
|
|
#359 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
|
Quote:
Why?
We are allowed to see information in the public domain about their affiliations and opinions , nothing wrong with that Its insinuating that they are not up to impartial judgement that is weak. |
|
|
|
|
|
#360 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
|
Quote:
Why?
We are allowed to see information in the public domain about their affiliations and opinions , nothing wrong with that 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#361 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,498
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#362 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 9,078
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#363 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 27,438
|
Quote:
The court case is about retrospectively adding the third option to the ballot paper.
![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#364 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#365 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#366 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#367 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
|
Quote:
Do you know what 'passive aggressive' means?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#368 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,360
|
Quote:
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
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#369 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
|
Quote:
I repeat
'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#370 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
|
Quote:
Yes I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#371 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,568
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#372 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,595
|
Quote:
Along with
'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide' Seemed pretty straight forward to me |
|
|
|
|
|
#373 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,751
|
Quote:
How was the FM being 'passive aggressive' with you?
![]() Anyway, life is too short. |
|
|
|
|
|
#374 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,420
|
Quote:
I repeat
'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide If people want to be mad at anyone they should be mad at a Conservative government that failed to make the referendum legally binding. |
|
|
|
|
|
#375 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
|
Quote:
If they didn't intend it to only be advisory, they should've written the legislation so that it wasn't only advisory.
They won't accept this of course. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39.





