Planet Rugby Forum

RodneyRegis wrote:So....

Did Parliament vote to ratify the 1975 referendum?

Did Scottish parliament vote to ratify the Inie ref result?

Would parliament have voted to ratify a remain vote?

If not, why not?

Still, win-win really - either parliament votes to leave, or we get to have a riot

Have you read the judgement? It's not about parliament needing to ratify the result of a referendum, it's about whether or not the royal prerogative can be used to remove rights granted by parliamentary acts. Which of those others you name removed rights granted by parliament? Two of them represent a vote for no change.

Also, courts can only rule on cases brought before them. No court case, no ruling.

Mahoney wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:So....

Did Parliament vote to ratify the 1975 referendum?

Did Scottish parliament vote to ratify the Inie ref result?

Would parliament have voted to ratify a remain vote?

If not, why not?

Still, win-win really - either parliament votes to leave, or we get to have a riot

Have you read the judgement? It's not about parliament needing to ratify the result of a referendum, it's about whether or not the royal prerogative can be used to remove rights granted by parliamentary acts. Which of those others you name removed rights granted by parliament? Two of them represent a vote for no change.

Also, courts can only rule on cases brought before them. No court case, no ruling.

Has Rodney read the judgement

Duff Paddy wrote:

Silver wrote:
Something wrong with democracy when judges can overrule parliament.

quite the opposite surely

to me this is very clear

Parliament voted to pass this decision to the people. The people have voted. Parliament HAs appointed a Govt. Why it needs to go back to Parliament is unclear.

But what is the EU really all about. Its to destroy the nation state and democracy. And pass power to a small appointed elite. Its been many years setting it all up. The establishment will not let all this planning over many years go out the window without a fight. This is a small part of the fightback. Now strong pressure will be put on individual MP's in any way they can

I like haggis wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:So....

Did Parliament vote to ratify the 1975 referendum?

Did Scottish parliament vote to ratify the Inie ref result?

Would parliament have voted to ratify a remain vote?

If not, why not?

Still, win-win really - either parliament votes to leave, or we get to have a riot

It all depends on the Referendum Act passed allowing the referendum, the Referendum Act 2015 said it was advisory because nobody in the Commons thought leave would win and made sufficient preparations. But, if remain had one there wouldn't be any issues with a vote as MPs wanted remain. The Scottish Referendum Act didn't mention if it was binding but as you say you can't just ignore the result.

1975 maintained the status quo so didn't no vote was needed to ratify it. The same thing is true for the Scot ref. Had the nats won Westminster and Edinburgh would have negotiated a bill, which as far as rUK was concerned would have needed Assent.

If Remain had won there would again be no change to UK law and no parliamentary process. To change the law obviously needs a parliamentary Act of some sort.

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.

grubberkick wrote: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?

paddyor wrote:

grubberkick wrote: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?

Of course they have the money, levers on power and the ability to market an opinion.






(As it should be).

paddyor wrote:

grubberkick wrote: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.

The Sun God wrote:

TranceNRG wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

TranceNRG wrote: Yeah acting on the the result of the referendum is tyrannical and incompetent. I don't need to remind you about her very high approval ratings. So clearly the general public disagree with you.

A word to the wise sport.....you are a fcuking idiot who really should not get involved in conversations of any importance. If you are a Father, I feel sorry for your kids. Go back and start/finish your education because you are lacking in so many facets. Nothing personal you gormless idiot.

Perhaps you could point out where I was wrong in my assertion you impolite wanker. Don't worry I think you are a gobshite too.

Fcuking hell, you have infected this 600 page thread like a bad dose of syphilis. Not once have you had any insight into what may or may not happen in relation to Brexit and have shouted down any poster who presented an intelligent argument as to why ' Brexit does not mean Brexit.'
Go and read a few books you antipodean moron. Thank fcuk people like you are not the future of the UK

You really are a thick impolite wanker. I don't recall shouting down anyone who presented an intelligent argument, certainly not the way you accuse me of doing. There have been plenty of good arguments from both the in and out camps but I haven't made personal attacks on people because I disagreed with them. Only time I retaliated was when I was attacked first (by twats like yourself). I have a lot of time for posters like Theo, Fisgard, RodneyRegis, SamShark and even couple of Irish posters who are always polite and offer good input and whilst I might not have always agreed with them, I don't think I've shouted them down. I always have time for decent people who are polite in their discussions regardless of their position on the matter but have no time for dickheads like yourself and a few others who here who shout down anyone that presented a different opinion. So don't waste your time lecturing me what I should be or shouldn't be doing you intellectual pigmy. Future of the UK? Well it's certainly not you moron. I don't plan on leaving the UK anytime soon I think you are a loud mouthed gobshite who's offered SFA to the debate. So go get f***d.

PS: It's nothing personal.

RodneyRegis wrote:So....

Did Parliament vote to ratify the 1975 referendum?

Did Scottish parliament vote to ratify the Inie ref result?

Would parliament have voted to ratify a remain vote?

If not, why not?

Still, win-win really - either parliament votes to leave, or we get to have a riot

Was that really the result of the high court ruling? I thought it was to ratify when article 50 is triggered not if. Thus if the brexit deal is 'bad' then they force the government back to the table. On the plus side this 'will of the people' crap line will be tempered

Silver wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Silver wrote:
Something wrong with democracy when judges can overrule parliament.

quite the opposite surely

to me this is very clear

Parliament voted to pass this decision to the people. The people have voted. Parliament HAs appointed a Govt. Why it needs to go back to Parliament is unclear.

But what is the EU really all about. Its to destroy the nation state and democracy. And pass power to a small appointed elite. Its been many years setting it all up. The establishment will not let all this planning over many years go out the window without a fight. This is a small part of the fightback. Now strong pressure will be put on individual MP's in any way they can

Be sure the BBC will do all it can and more.

Silver wrote:And some comments on the above article

How can the judge with a European law firm not be seen to have a conflict of interest in this case ?
75
1247
Click to rate

2 of 9 repliesSee all replies

WillsC, London, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago

Exactly! He should have recused himself because of his conflict of interest and lack of impartiality. The decision should be made null and void based on the fact that he didn't.
1
41
Click to rate

Brigadier Mustard, Ex B Battery Ist Regt RHA, United Kingdom, moments ago

Something wrong with democracy when judges can overrule parliament. Parliament make the laws, time we sorted out the unelected judges.

1. I thought one of your contentions was always that we were leaving the EU not Europe? In which case what does Lord Thomas' membership of a pan-European legal association have to do with anything?

2. Do you have any understanding of how the law works in the UK?

Silver wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Silver wrote:
Something wrong with democracy when judges can overrule parliament.

quite the opposite surely

to me this is very clear

Parliament voted to pass this decision to the people. The people have voted. Parliament HAs appointed a Govt. Why it needs to go back to Parliament is unclear.

But what is the EU really all about. Its to destroy the nation state and democracy. And pass power to a small appointed elite. Its been many years setting it all up. The establishment will not let all this planning over many years go out the window without a fight. This is a small part of the fightback. Now strong pressure will be put on individual MP's in any way they can

So the UK courts pass a judgement that the UK parliament has sovereignty and that is the fault of the UK..

I suggest you look at the following link it may help your mindset.. https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_w ... u_re_wrong

Silver wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Silver wrote:
Something wrong with democracy when judges can overrule parliament.

quite the opposite surely

to me this is very clear

Parliament voted to pass this decision to the people. The people have voted. Parliament HAs appointed a Govt. Why it needs to go back to Parliament is unclear.

But what is the EU really all about. Its to destroy the nation state and democracy. And pass power to a small appointed elite. Its been many years setting it all up. The establishment will not let all this planning over many years go out the window without a fight. This is a small part of the fightback. Now strong pressure will be put on individual MP's in any way they can

Erm no. No they haven't.

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

Rocketz wrote: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

Silver wrote: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...

That's terrible.

Rocketz wrote: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...

Frodder wrote:

Rocketz wrote: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.

Anyone mentioned the guy demanding that the BBC broadcast the national anthem at the end of every day yet?

dr dre2 wrote:

Frodder wrote:

Rocketz wrote: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

Rocketz wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:

Frodder wrote:

Rocketz wrote: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

dr dre2 wrote:

Rocketz wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:

Frodder wrote:

Rocketz wrote: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

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.

grubberkick wrote:

Rocketz wrote: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?

topofthemoon wrote:

grubberkick wrote:

Rocketz wrote: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

grubberkick wrote: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.

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

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 wrote:
if the MPs voted against triggering Article 50.

There will be uproar.

EverReady wrote:That is bad- Britain is bad

And we should feel bad.

fisgard792 wrote: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.

c69 wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:

c69 wrote:
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.

c69 wrote:
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."

dr dre2 wrote:
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.

topofthemoon wrote:

Silver wrote: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.

grubberkick wrote:

paddyor wrote:

grubberkick wrote: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!

The Man Without Fear wrote:

EverReady wrote:That is bad- Britain is bad

And we should feel bad.

Im very disappointed in you frankly.

I like haggis wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:
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.