|
||||||||
Brexit To Be Stuck In Legal Battles For Year? Never Get Off Ground? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
Quote:
So you've now defined a referendum majority as mob rule. Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
Just hope you have enough tissues.
I'm guessing you live in a Trumpy/Govey world where education is to be feared, wisdom viewed as an elitist trait the and "experts" burned in wicker men...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
|
Quote:
So you've now defined a referendum majority as mob rule. Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Love The Beeb! PROUD Remoaner!
Posts: 11,149
|
Quote:
We've been down that road enough times tho.. Do you think if was working??
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
Really? Even if we lose the financial services passport and our GDP falls by 20%?
I wish I shared your certainty. http://www.cityam.com/251202/eu-financial-transaction-tax-unveiled-year http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2016-11-01/ftt-tax-brexit-comment When the UK voted to leave the European Union in June, many believed the EU might actually benefit in some ways, particularly in relation to business shifting from an uncertain UK. That outlook may have been turned rather on its head recently when some EU finance ministers agreed on October 10 to put forth a proposal to impose a financial transaction tax on trading. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation-financial-sector_en |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,964
|
Quote:
We've been down that road enough times tho.. Do you think if was working??
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18,881
|
Quote:
So the papers keep saying. Getting two thirds of the commons to agree with her is going to be an improbable challenge though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18,881
|
Quote:
When people genuinely believe that the High Court is "outranked" by anyone, aside from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on matters of constitutional law, I consider that to be a matter of deep sorrow.
I'm guessing you live in a Trumpy/Govey world where education is to be feared, wisdom viewed as an elitist trait the and "experts" burned in wicker men... ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
|
Quote:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/237444...single-market/
ANOTHER legal challenge to Brexit FFS, will Brexit ever get off the ground? it will be stuck in legal battles for years.. seems the high court ruling has made any tom, dick and harry with a few bob to fancy their chances thinking they can thwart Brexit everytime it looks like it will get off ground.. I'm not sure if Brexit will ever happen now.. losing hope rapidly. And if we do get Brexit like Mr. Farage says I suspect a Soft Brexit.. waiting for 2020 really is probably Brexiteers best bet for change... ![]() As to the complainants, I have no idea what their legal argument is but I'd be willing to bet that it's not as strong as the current ongoing case before the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,311
|
Quote:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/237444...single-market/
ANOTHER legal challenge to Brexit FFS, will Brexit ever get off the ground? it will be stuck in legal battles for years.. seems the high court ruling has made any tom, dick and harry with a few bob to fancy their chances thinking they can thwart Brexit everytime it looks like it will get off ground.. I'm not sure if Brexit will ever happen now.. losing hope rapidly. And if we do get Brexit like Mr. Farage says I suspect a Soft Brexit.. waiting for 2020 really is probably Brexiteers best bet for change... ![]() Wasn't quite so easy, was it, trying to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes! Thank goodness our fusty old legal system has stopped the spivs and crooks in their tracks. Anybody has the right to challenge a decision in the Courts, if they can afford it. Sadly, the only winners of this farce will, as usual, be the lawyers, but at least some of our smug politicians are having the smiles wiped off their slippery faces. |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18,881
|
Quote:
Yes, definitely. Let's imagine that some populist nutjob becomes PM and decides to hold a referendum to legalise drug dealing and the vote is marginally in favour. Very unlikely of course but it could happen nonetheless. In that case, the legal system would swing into place to protect the country from "the will of the people" and would effectively overrule the result.
If your "drugs" referendum was introduced have you considered what would be the case if the referendum was binding? Have you ever thought of starting a group to oppose legalised drug dealing, it's something that's been considered on a number of occasions by the brain-dead liberalistas, with the NHS as the dealers? I've asked the next question on more than one occasion but not yet had an answer. Had the EU referendum been binding, would you have unquestionably accepted it? And no yeah but ifs and maybe. |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 807
|
The fact is that remain supporters are quite literally making themselves poorer by emptying their wallets to fund one legal challenge after another. So yes as they claimed in the referendum campaign, Brexit will definitely be making them worse off, and we haven't even left yet!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,542
|
Quote:
Yes, definitely. Let's imagine that some populist nutjob becomes PM and decides to hold a referendum to legalise drug dealing and the vote is marginally in favour. Very unlikely of course but it could happen nonetheless. In that case, the legal system would swing into place to protect the country from "the will of the people" and would effectively overrule the result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
I was being well educated before you were born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,288
|
Quote:
When people genuinely believe that the High Court is "outranked" by anyone, aside from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on matters of constitutional law, I consider that to be a matter of deep sorrow.
I'm guessing you live in a Trumpy/Govey world where education is to be feared, wisdom viewed as an elitist trait the and "experts" burned in wicker men... ![]() The Commons in essence consented to article 50 in all but name by a 327 majority last week. The main reason to hope for a Government win is so Gina Miller and the other applicants are hit with the costs rather than the taxpayer. Cos I bet Lord Pannick doesn't come cheap! |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
I'm only too well aware of Remnants moving goalposts in an attempt to prove a non-point, so just to put you right.
If your "drugs" referendum was introduced have you considered what would be the case if the referendum was binding? Have you ever thought of starting a group to oppose legalised drug dealing, it's something that's been considered on a number of occasions by the brain-dead liberalistas, with the NHS as the dealers? I've asked the next question on more than one occasion but not yet had an answer. Had the EU referendum been binding, would you have unquestionably accepted it? And no yeah but ifs and maybe. But it wasn't binding and even if it was, a binding referendum would still need to be applied according to the rule of law. Apologies for answering on another's behalf but if Eurostar feels otherwise, I'm sure he'll yell... |
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
|
Quote:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/237444...single-market/
ANOTHER legal challenge to Brexit FFS, will Brexit ever get off the ground? it will be stuck in legal battles for years.. seems the high court ruling has made any tom, dick and harry with a few bob to fancy their chances thinking they can thwart Brexit everytime it looks like it will get off ground.. I'm not sure if Brexit will ever happen now.. losing hope rapidly. And if we do get Brexit like Mr. Farage says I suspect a Soft Brexit.. waiting for 2020 really is probably Brexiteers best bet for change... ![]() Well it would have been a good idea if people were informed what they were voting for and the ramifications instead of being hit with gloom and doom on one side and ridiculous and patently false claims on the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,542
|
Quote:
Either way the Supreme Court case seems to be a colossal waste of money on both sides.
The Commons in essence consented to article 50 in all but name by a 327 majority last week. The main reason to hope for a Government win is so Gina Miller and the other applicants are hit with the costs rather than the taxpayer. Cos I bet Lord Pannick doesn't come cheap!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18,881
|
Quote:
Good for you; try putting it to some use then...
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18,881
|
Quote:
A binding referendum would surely have been just that; which isn't to say that any remnant worth his salt would have done anything other than got back up and, and begun to make the alternative case, as leavers have spent 40 years making their own cases.
But it wasn't binding and even if it was, a binding referendum would still need to be applied according to the rule of law. Apologies for answering on another's behalf but if Eurostar feels otherwise, I'm sure he'll yell... |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
Either way the Supreme Court case seems to be a colossal waste of money on both sides.
The Commons in essence consented to article 50 in all but name by a 327 majority last week. The main reason to hope for a Government win is so Gina Miller and the other applicants are hit with the costs rather than the taxpayer. Cos I bet Lord Pannick doesn't come cheap! A motion is not a bill of parliament or anything approximating it; its not even binding, in any way at all, nor a blank cheque. People have no idea about how Parliament actually works, what being a parliamentary democracy means, or the role of the Courts within our constitution. It's horrifying... ![]() Also, no one is going to be "hit" with any costs (it was crowdfunded and Pannick and the key legal team are all (though i don't claim to be privy to the detail but know a man who is) working on very significantly reduced rates and certainly not Gina Miller, who happened to be selected by the court as lead claimant. Well, no one apart from the taxpayer, who is picking up the tab for the bill of defending an obviously meritorious case then defending the governments hopeless appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
|
Quote:
I'm only too well aware of Remnants moving goalposts in an attempt to prove a non-point, so just to put you right.
If your "drugs" referendum was introduced have you considered what would be the case if the referendum was binding? Have you ever thought of starting a group to oppose legalised drug dealing, it's something that's been considered on a number of occasions by the brain-dead liberalistas, with the NHS as the dealers? I've asked the next question on more than one occasion but not yet had an answer. Had the EU referendum been binding, would you have unquestionably accepted it? And no yeah but ifs and maybe. The point I'm making is that there are very good reasons the judiciary are independent of parliament and government. They are there to ensure that the law of the land is upheld at all costs, even if there is crazy stuff going on at political level or via referenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
I do, it's you not able to keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
I thought you had something to do with the legal process and you haven't provided answers to what I asked Eurostar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,288
|
Quote:
No it didn't; I've seen this point made numerous times and it's a complete misconception, or better put a thorough misrepresentation, adopted by Brexit headbangers like IDS.
A motion is not a bill of parliament or anything approximating it; its not even binding, in any way at all, nor a blank cheque. People have no idea about how Parliament actually works, what being a parliamentary democracy means, or the role of the Courts within our constitution. It's horrifying... ![]() Also, no one is going to be "hit" with any costs (it was crowdfunded and Pannick and the key legal team are all (though i don't claim to be privy to the detail but know a man who is) working on very significantly reduced rates and certainly not Gina Miller, who happened to be selected by the court as lead claimant. Well, no one apart from the taxpayer, who is picking up the tab for the bill of defending an obviously meritorious case then defending the governments hopeless appeal. I merely observed that parliament is going to approve the article 50 declaration anyway as that vote this week demonstrated - so it becomes in effect academic in terms of this particular case.If our non existent 'constitution' was clear we wouldnt be having this case. But its odd that hedge fund managers and their wives have never bothered to challenge the use of the royal prerogative before - only following the very clear result of a referendum which of course parliament approved by passing an act of parliament to allow it to happen. Parliament spoke when it delegated the decision to the people - and its their duty now to implement it. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:05.





