OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

[dr dre2]

More signs the UK has utterly lost the plot.... An openly gay Olympic fencer blocks brexit

The Daily hate goes full retard

An openly gay Olympic fencer

Sweet f**k Jesus, I mean an openly gay Olympic fencer

The bastard! Both Brexit and the Trump thing are great craic. if nothing else.

I always thought Idiocracy would happen in the USA

Well if the mainstream parties employ pantomime tactics for 30 years and condition the people to it, when the real widow twankey decides to run and out pantomime's them, they can have no complaints. They just lost to a better pantoitician

[Rocketz]

More signs the UK has utterly lost the plot.... An openly gay Olympic fencer blocks brexit

The Daily hate goes full retard

An openly gay Olympic fencer

Sweet f**k Jesus, I mean an openly gay Olympic fencer

The bastard! Both Brexit and the Trump thing are great craic. if nothing else.

I always thought Idiocracy would happen in the USA

Well if the mainstream parties employ pantomime tactics for 30 years and condition the people to it, when the real widow twankey decides to run and out pantomime's them, they can have no complaints. They just lost to a better pantoitician

A pantoitician employing pantonomics

[grubberkick]

I guess we will have to see if the 3 judges get support from their colleagues regarding their opinion on Royal Prerogative and the government's ability to function. Maybe a lot of previous government actions under Royal Prerogative, immunity etc will be open to challenge.

[topofthemoon]

More signs the UK has utterly lost the plot.... An openly gay Olympic fencer blocks brexit

Undeclared interest could be a prob. As the Irish pm said, it could get vicious...

What undeclared interest?

[Frodder]

More signs the UK has utterly lost the plot.... An openly gay Olympic fencer blocks brexit

Undeclared interest could be a prob. As the Irish pm said, it could get vicious...

What undeclared interest?

Playing the man and not the ball......How very Yes Minister

[dr dre2]

I guess we will have to see if the 3 judges get support from their colleagues regarding their opinion on Royal Prerogative and the government's ability to function. Maybe a lot of previous government actions under Royal Prerogative, immunity etc will be open to challenge.

Open to a challenge you say!

En garde



Only if we can put forward this guy forward to judge it.

[fisgard792]

what a mess,

for a country that has made a mess of situations a national pastime, this really trumps it all

whats the end route of this. its like to problems of the labour party but 180 degrees out, and on the government stage

one thing that was acknowledged from the campaign, for example, threats as in comments from obama, backfired to the opposition advantage. the only thing that many people felt they had left was the power of their individual vote, if that is to be seen as meaningless, where does that take us as a democracy

for a mess, its totally deserved though, the whole campaign process was a disgrace, with politicians lying from both sides, and doing so, with impunity

[Leinster in London]

Wiki

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognised in the United Kingdom as the sole prerogative of the Sovereign and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.

Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting on his or her own initiative. Since the 19th century, by convention, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet—who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision—has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised . The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.

Today the royal prerogative is available in the conduct of the government of the United Kingdom, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security. The monarchy has a significant constitutional presence in these and other matters, but limited power, because the exercise of the prerogative is in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials.

The courts decision today recognised that if Article 50 is enacted then Parliament will not have the opportunity to take anything into account. Therefore Parliament must decide first. In the wording above, (I know it may not be the correct version), I would imagine that parliament would have to vote before hand relinquishing any right to hold the government accountable.

There was a suggestion that The Supreme Leader May, Only Commander of of the Glorious Remnants of the British Empire and Upholder of Sovereignity should have exercised Article 50 after her promotion. The court cases would prove this unconstitutional, hence the EU would have had to reject that attempt,as it requires that the Article 50 declaration is constitutional.

[C69]

if the MPs voted against triggering Article 50.

[dr dre2]

if the MPs voted against triggering Article 50.

There will be uproar.

[C69]

if the MPs voted against triggering Article 50.

There will be uproar.

I really don't care. I imagine my quiet little Middle Class corner of England won't be too bothered.

[The Man Without Fear]

That is bad- Britain is bad

And we should feel bad.

[I like haggis]

what a mess,

for a country that has made a mess of situations a national pastime, this really trumps it all

whats the end route of this. its like to problems of the labour party but 180 degrees out, and on the government stage

one thing that was acknowledged from the campaign, for example, threats as in comments from obama, backfired to the opposition advantage. the only thing that many people felt they had left was the power of their individual vote, if that is to be seen as meaningless, where does that take us as a democracy

for a mess, its totally deserved though, the whole campaign process was a disgrace, with politicians lying from both sides, and doing so, with impunity

100% spot on. Include the media machine in pumping out lies with impunity as well. But it's why Brexit will be a disaster; people threatening revolution, at least 48% of people want to stay, the Government won't tell anyone a thing about how it will happen and no opposition in site. This whole affair has brought out an extremely ugly division which will be very damaging imo.

[dr dre2]

if the MPs voted against triggering Article 50.

There will be uproar.

I really don't care. I imagine my quiet little Middle Class corner of England won't be too bothered.

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

[Leinster in London]

if the MPs voted against triggering Article 50.

Watching many episodes of Yes (Prime) Minister would lead to Sir Humphrey agreeing with you, then giving the obvious advice.

You must ensure vote takes place.

But before that vote Parliament must receive a report from a sub-committee to analyse which laws need changing, and their suggestions for re-wording. These new laws can then be presented to parliament for their review and amendment.
Another sub-committee analyses the effect on the city. Then parliament after the normal due diligence chooses which is the best option for UK.
Similar sub-committees for Int'l transport, with Air being a priority, Fishing (this is important to some people), Agriculture (in particular 'How will we feed ourselves ?).
"Bernard, report back to me in six months time with a full list of the committees that will be required."

[I like haggis]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

[piquant]

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.as ... qus_thread

Have read part of the Judgement giving the conclusions but not the full 32 pager. The government would have a strong case for appeal at the Supreme Court.

The thread of the Judgment is that the royal prerogative cannot be invoked for Article 50 as it would affect domestic law and some of the 'rights' obtained under EU law. That is pure cack..

Article 50 has 2 functions. First - asking the EU to begin negotiations. Second - terminating the EU treaty 2 years hence unless another agreement (for withdrawal or extended negotiation) has been made.

The first does not change any law. In the second, should the UK terminate the EU Treaty, under the Vienna Convention, it does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation arising from the Treaty. The ECA1972 would still be in force until explicitly repealed by another Act of Parliament, so technically no domestic law is changed..

The government could legitimately explain that Parliament would get a vote on any withdrawal agreement and related arrangements, so invoking Article 50 is not taking the bread out of anyone's mouth.

Excellent - the learned legal conclusions of a PhD in public sector food-poisoning surveillance who has read "part" of the judgement. That's certainly a game changer...

It's not an unfair claim that the PM would expect to be able to exercise the royal prerogative, partly we don't as such have a constitution so there are some issues there, but also (and mainly) as the power to change and even leave international treaties is something covered by the royal prerogative. However if in this instance we enact a50 and then end up with no deal we will have delivered a fait accompli upon the domestic law when there's a parliamentary act which notes the request for EU law to apply at a domestic level, and to prevent the government from saying oops we're supposed to give you a say on this but now it's too late the court has ruled how it has - at least that's my guess.

On this basis I really don't see how parliament can use such ruling to deny some form of Brexit. They're really only getting a chance to comment on the the proceedings, reasonably enough, they're not getting a chance to ignore the outcome of the vote, that would be unreasonable.

[paddyor]

If the next court also rejects the government right to start brexit negotiations following the referendum opinion of the population, a referendum authorised by parliament, then she should resign and call a general election. Vested interests versus the will of the people. I know who will win.

The vested interests?

This court case did not emerge from the ether or fund itself.

And gay fencers arent cheap!

[paddyor]

That is bad- Britain is bad

And we should feel bad.

Im very disappointed in you frankly.

[dr dre2]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

Not the same thing. Accepting democratic loss may hurt but keeps the system in place. To ignore democratic victory tares down the whole fragile illusion of democracy, by illusion, I mean it's a human concept to which we must believe in, in order to subscribe to. Any future attempt to carry on this illusion will be met with resistance, that is the kind of thing that breaks down society. Usually it's in the 3rd world and the illusion of strength or power is what holds society in place and just a crack in it and it blows up, here it's democratic fairness. No.... not the same thing as what a remoaner has to learn to live with at all. It would be having to learn to live with permanent unfairness, way off the scale. Remoaners were not cheated, they just don't agree.

That's of course the vote over turning the people, not that the vote takes place.

[OhNo]

Wiki

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognised in the United Kingdom as the sole prerogative of the Sovereign and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.

Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting on his or her own initiative. Since the 19th century, by convention, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet—who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision—has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised . The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.

Today the royal prerogative is available in the conduct of the government of the United Kingdom, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security. The monarchy has a significant constitutional presence in these and other matters, but limited power, because the exercise of the prerogative is in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials.

The courts decision today recognised that if Article 50 is enacted then Parliament will not have the opportunity to take anything into account. Therefore Parliament must decide first. In the wording above, (I know it may not be the correct version), I would imagine that parliament would have to vote before hand relinquishing any right to hold the government accountable.

There was a suggestion that The Supreme Leader May, Only Commander of of the Glorious Remnants of the British Empire and Upholder of Sovereignity should have exercised Article 50 after her promotion. The court cases would prove this unconstitutional, hence the EU would have had to reject that attempt,as it requires that the Article 50 declaration is constitutional.

No, in a nutshell and grossly simplifying the court said today that using the Royal Perogative to withdraw the U.K. from the Treaty would be an over reach. This would be because it would conflict with the supremacy of Parliament. As the prerogative cannot be used to alter legislation or even common law. This was a question of UK constitutional law.

Now I've only read it once and was a bit distracted as I discovered macgyver versus the ants episode, which along with mentions of Dicey, The 1688 Bill of Rights, The Case of the Proclamations and others was causing a major age regression. Quite a bit to think about and will want another read. I would recommend a read, of a least the first bit, as it contains a good brief guide to the uk constitution, the royal perogative, parliamentary supremacy and how treaties and the in particular the EU ones all work together.

[piquant]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

Not the same thing. Accepting democratic loss may hurt but keeps the system in place. To ignore democratic victory tares down the whole fragile illusion of democracy, by illusion, I mean it's a human concept to which we must believe in, in order to subscribe to. Any future attempt to carry on this illusion will be met with resistance, that is the kind of thing that breaks down society. Usually it's in the 3rd world and the illusion of strength or power is what hold society in place, here it's democratic fairness. No.... not the same thing as what a remoaner has to learn to live with at all.

It was a democratic loss in court today for the government.

[fisgard792]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

just a wee point of order, aren't the 48% that didn't want to leave the EU against any brexit, hard, soft or even a little bit squelchy

[Chuckles1188]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

[I like haggis]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

just a wee point of order, aren't the 48% that didn't want to leave the EU against any brexit, hard, soft or even a little bit squelchy

I voted to remain, however I accepted that we will leave the EU. But, I am especially against a hard Brexit because of the damage I think it will do and I imagine many remain voters agree with me on that. We're not talking about if Brexit happens, we're moving onto how Brexit happens. Something Brexiteer bedwetters thinking the courts are against them might want to think about.

[bimboman]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

just a wee point of order, aren't the 48% that didn't want to leave the EU against any brexit, hard, soft or even a little bit squelchy

Indeed and id only have to find 2.1% of leavers who wanted soft brexit.

[OhNo]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

It's a good question, maybe we could shoot C69 and then have a poll on the bored to see how we feel about it?

[msp.]

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.as ... qus_thread

Have read part of the Judgement giving the conclusions but not the full 32 pager. The government would have a strong case for appeal at the Supreme Court.

The thread of the Judgment is that the royal prerogative cannot be invoked for Article 50 as it would affect domestic law and some of the 'rights' obtained under EU law. That is pure cack..

Article 50 has 2 functions. First - asking the EU to begin negotiations. Second - terminating the EU treaty 2 years hence unless another agreement (for withdrawal or extended negotiation) has been made.

The first does not change any law. In the second, should the UK terminate the EU Treaty, under the Vienna Convention, it does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation arising from the Treaty. The ECA1972 would still be in force until explicitly repealed by another Act of Parliament, so technically no domestic law is changed..

The government could legitimately explain that Parliament would get a vote on any withdrawal agreement and related arrangements, so invoking Article 50 is not taking the bread out of anyone's mouth.

Excellent - the learned legal conclusions of a PhD in public sector food-poisoning surveillance who has read "part" of the judgement. That's certainly a game changer...

It's not an unfair claim that the PM would expect to be able to exercise the royal prerogative, partly we don't as such have a constitution so there are some issues there, but also (and mainly) as the power to change and even leave international treaties is something covered by the royal prerogative. However if in this instance we enact a50 and then end up with no deal we will have delivered a fait accompli upon the domestic law when there's a parliamentary act which notes the request for EU law to apply at a domestic level, and to prevent the government from saying oops we're supposed to give you a say on this but now it's too late the court has ruled how it has - at least that's my guess.

On this basis I really don't see how parliament can use such ruling to deny some form of Brexit. They're really only getting a chance to comment on the the proceedings, reasonably enough, they're not getting a chance to ignore the outcome of the vote, that would be unreasonable.

That is my understanding of the ruling. Because it is possible that by enacting article 50. This could lead to a change in the law without parliament agreement , which would be unconstitutional. Parliament there needs to consulted beforehand to avoid that situation. Should of all been sorted out by the referendum bill...

[C69]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

It's a good question, maybe we could shoot C69 and then have a poll on the bored to see how we feel about it?

You would feel cheated as I am not a doctor however you may feel elated as I would be dead all the same.

[fisgard792]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

i had this crap at the weekend by somebody who voted remain and literally wanted it all to fail, even to the point of effecting every bodies children for the worse because the vote happened to go against her own personal preference

the next bit of this gambit, is the frequency of referendums, 3 since 1973, okay, then what about letting the politicl parties decide, after all we pay them a pittance in real terms, but hang on they themselves are split on the eu issue

its was also ken clarke gambit on QT last week, say no more

[OhNo]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

It's a good question, maybe we could shoot C69 and then have a poll on the bored to see how we feel about it?

You would feel cheated as I am not a doctor however you may feel elated as I would be dead all the same.

Oh well, Doc Rob it is then, seems a shame as there are so few Scots on the bored. Anyway I wouldn't be elated, as coog proves death is no barrier to posting and having a full life on here.

[Chuckles1188]

Mind clarifying what the "this crap" that you're referring to is?

[dr dre2]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

Chuckles you are usually good value but that is a horrendous post.

[DragsterDriver]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

It's a good question, maybe we could shoot C69 and then have a poll on the bored to see how we feel about it?

Brexit i can handle but whale hunting is pushing it too far.

[JJR]

As someone alluded to before, if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it? The whole purpose of representative democracy is to provide an informed filter for the public's wishes so that we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country. That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money. If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one? Let's just decide everything by plebiscite (please God let's not do that)

I reckon Jeremy Hunt should pitch that idea.

[OhNo]

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.as ... qus_thread

Have read part of the Judgement giving the conclusions but not the full 32 pager. The government would have a strong case for appeal at the Supreme Court.

The thread of the Judgment is that the royal prerogative cannot be invoked for Article 50 as it would affect domestic law and some of the 'rights' obtained under EU law. That is pure cack..

Article 50 has 2 functions. First - asking the EU to begin negotiations. Second - terminating the EU treaty 2 years hence unless another agreement (for withdrawal or extended negotiation) has been made.

The first does not change any law. In the second, should the UK terminate the EU Treaty, under the Vienna Convention, it does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation arising from the Treaty. The ECA1972 would still be in force until explicitly repealed by another Act of Parliament, so technically no domestic law is changed..

The government could legitimately explain that Parliament would get a vote on any withdrawal agreement and related arrangements, so invoking Article 50 is not taking the bread out of anyone's mouth.

Excellent - the learned legal conclusions of a PhD in public sector food-poisoning surveillance who has read "part" of the judgement. That's certainly a game changer...

It's not an unfair claim that the PM would expect to be able to exercise the royal prerogative, partly we don't as such have a constitution so there are some issues there, but also (and mainly) as the power to change and even leave international treaties is something covered by the royal prerogative. However if in this instance we enact a50 and then end up with no deal we will have delivered a fait accompli upon the domestic law when there's a parliamentary act which notes the request for EU law to apply at a domestic level, and to prevent the government from saying oops we're supposed to give you a say on this but now it's too late the court has ruled how it has - at least that's my guess.

On this basis I really don't see how parliament can use such ruling to deny some form of Brexit. They're really only getting a chance to comment on the the proceedings, reasonably enough, they're not getting a chance to ignore the outcome of the vote, that would be unreasonable.

That is my understanding of the ruling. Because it is possible that by enacting article 50. This could lead to a change in the law without parliament agreement , which would be unconstitutional. Parliament there needs to consulted beforehand to avoid that situation. Should of all been sorted out by the referendum bill...

The question on the judgement and probably the appeal seems to balance on the usual way we determine the interaction of international treaties dealt with by royal prerogative and parliamentary legislation. Now case law seems to indicate that if an international treaties require some form of legislation that doesn't rule out using the royal prerogative to abrogate that treaty unless parliament has specifically precluded this in the wording of the legislation. This gives a compromise between governments ability to act whilst keeping parliament supreme. There is no such wording in the ECA 1972, so the judgement is basically why it is different in this case.

[fisgard792]

Mind clarifying what the "this crap" that you're referring to is?

that the public are too stupid to vote on an issue of a similar level of importance to independence, is left to mp's

"if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it", yes thats a profoundly realistic comparison to support your view, i can now see how you are scared of stupid people voting

if the vote had been the other way around, would it be the case "we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country"

"That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money", we dont actually, we pay them pish, which is why no one bothers when they corrupt themselves for more alternative cash

"If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one." the main parties had substantial splits in them, corbyn, mcdonnell, field, and as an indicator, ukip hit labour as hard as the tories

"Let's just decide everything by plebiscite" indeed on average once every 13 years, its becoming too routine, you win

[dr dre2]

Political uproar. And.. well.. yes.. maybe as you allude violence, because that would be an affront to democracy, you either except the corruption of it and that you have been ignored or do something else... And for a hell of a lot of people, that is something they cannot accept, to be blatantly ignored, to remove all pretence of fairness and just say live with it? That would remove the fabric of a system that's of human concept and that we have to believe in in order for it to exist. That thin line would be crossed. We could not pretend to be democratic anymore, the will of the people argument would be gone and it keeps a hell of a lot of people in place.

Interesting, do you mean like 48% (16,000,000+) of the population that didn't want to leave the EU and are against a hard Brexit? Who are just ignored, called a remoaner and to shut up because they lost.

just a wee point of order, aren't the 48% that didn't want to leave the EU against any brexit, hard, soft or even a little bit squelchy

Indeed and id only have to find 2.1% of leavers who wanted soft brexit.

Logically yes, but how are you going to prove then present that evidence in an effective way to a rabid mob who believe they have been cheated and no longer believe in the society they live in, interpretive dance? And to be honest, you lot keep telling us the leavers were stupid, irrational, nationalistic football hooligan types with nothing to lose and posh old gits. Well That is pretty much the ingredients of a revolutionary militia (and the British army)

And to answer the preceding post. What happened to all the reluctant remainers, who were thought to be a massive group in the middle? Some of them got sucked over to leave no doubt, but where are the others, if not in the 48%? what do you think happens to them if the unfairness reaches that level?

[Chuckles1188]

Mind clarifying what the "this crap" that you're referring to is?

that the public are too stupid to vote on an issue of a similar level of importance to independence, is left to mp's

Which is not what I said.

"if the public was convinced to vote to execute all doctors, would the government be obligated to do it", yes thats a profoundly realistic comparison to support your view, i can now see how you are scared of stupid people voting

I was shooting for a decision which was unambiguously ridiculous and stupid. I could have said "leave the single market", but...

if the vote had been the other way around, would it be the case "we don't end up making blatantly ridiculous, nonsensical decisions as a country"

Yes. I am opposed to plebiscites. Their track record for decision-making is largely poor, they have some major obvious flaws, and they undermine the entire concept of representative democracy, which mostly has a relatively good track record when compared with the alternatives. I have been entirely consistent from the get-go that I am thoroughly opposed to referenda regardless of how they end up going.

"That's why we pay the MPs who sit in it quite a lot of money", we dont actually, we pay them pish, which is why no one bothers when they corrupt themselves for more alternative cash

Right, yes, because there wasn't a huge scandal around MPs' fiddling their expenses. We pay them almost three times the national average salary, and there are 650 of them. That's a lot of money. There could be more, but accusing me of making a dumb point and then saying "we don't even pay MPs very much, which is why nobody cares when they are found to be corrupt" is manifestly much more stupid than any point I have made.

"If we're going to say that Parliament's decisions are entirely subordinate then why do we even have one." the main parties had substantial splits in them, corbyn, mcdonnell, field, and as an indicator, ukip hit labour as hard as the tories

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. The existence of splits in parties doesn't render the entire concept of representative democracy moot. What exactly are you getting at here?

"Let's just decide everything by plebiscite" indeed on average once every 13 years, its becoming too routine, you win

Again you have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying "we are having too many of them", I am asking why, if plebiscites are a more pure and superior form of democracy and we consider democracy to be a good thing, do we ever decide anything by any other mechanism?

[bimboman]

Just a quick point chuckles, we may retain access to the single market, however we are leaving it.