Planet Rugby Forum

SamShark wrote:

I like haggis wrote:

SamShark wrote:If someone sincerely and seriously told me they were a Daily Express reader, I don't think I could have further dealings with them.

To be a poor man's Mail is about as low as you can go.

The Sun is my favourite. Rogue for a foreign born millionaire influencing the will of the people having a go at a foreign born millionaire influencing the will of the people.

I despair that papers are targeting the judiciary though, an independent judiciary is probably the most important part of a free country.

They are a disgrace. Horrible, biased rags with seemingly no other remit than to invoke anger in readers who believe what they write (and those who can't f**k believe what they write)

It would be easy to be overly influenced by social media/media but the country feels pretty divided at the moment, and vermin like Farage can't claim his dimwitted supporters have the monopoly on "anger".

SamShark wrote:It's a sad day when Gary Lineker is now one of the nation's most sensible commentators.

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Twat yourself. The question of whether we will remain in the single market has been the subject of intense discussion around Brexit, without any attendant questions of whether or not we will leave the EU (which has been accepted as inevitable), literally for months. Not my fault if that somehow passed you by

It's not passed me by, if we leave the EU we are not members of the single market. We can have tariff free access to it, but by leaving we leave the single market.

The question you refer to and the intense argument is dumb because of the fact of leaving.

If you really think about it – and I concede that I hadn't so far given it any great thought – the Article 50 judicial review had to go before the Supreme Court for the judgement to be final, paving the way for Brexit to continue without further interruption.

Since a judicial review must initially be heard by the High Court – and the plaintiffs might not have appealed if they had been struck down - the best way of ensuring that the case went beyond the first round was to ensure that the initial decision went against the Government.

And if anyone really thinks that the Courts are objective seekers after the truth, and will find according to the fact, they are away with the fayries. At this level, "justice" is about making sure the establishment view prevails, and this is decided long before any lawyer starts addressing a judge.

Thus, before one takes note of the torrent of comment attendant on the outcome of the first round of a court case that will now move to a different venue on 7 December, one should note that this is just the first round. Those of a mind to celebrate should remember that it ain't over until it's over.

As to the judgement, I have now read it several times and then looked at some of the legacy media commentary and some of the blogs, such as Semi-Partisan Politics and Pete North, but would prefer to reserve my own detailed comments until I've seen the final judgement – the real judgement.

One thing I find puzzling about this interim judgement though is why their Lordships seems to have misinformed themselves about the nature of Article 50(2), having regard to the first paragraph of the Article.

The first paragraph, as readers will recall, is a statement of fact – reliant on customary law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It says: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements".

And clearly, this Member State, represented by the Government led by Mrs May, has decided to withdraw from the Union. The decision has already been made. Mrs May has reminded us of that many times since her very first pronouncement on becoming Prime Minister, when she declared "Brexit means Brexit". There would be no rowing back.

Whether or not there was a formal Cabinet decision to that effect, we do not know, but there can be no possible doubt that this Government means the United Kingdom to leave the EU.

On this, Parliament was consulted. There are many mechanisms by which Parliament could have raised a debate in either or both Houses, and voted on the same proposition that was put to the people – whether to remain in or leave the European Union. It did not do so and, by approving the Referendum Bill explicitly passed the decision to the people to make.

Even for our sad collection of intellectually challenged MPs, there cannot have been much difficulty in working out that, if a referendum posed two questions, then the most likely outcome would be that one or other might prevail (assuming a dead heat was hardly possible).

Then, the dimmest of our representatives could have drawn the conclusion that, should the majority vote to leave the EU, then the Government would be committed to take action to make that happen. Implicitly, a necessary consequence of the referendum vote going against the EU was that the Government would decide to leave the EU.

Then, in terms of a step-by-step sequence, having decided that we should leave, the Government is duty bound under Treaty law (viz Article 50) to notify the European Council of its decision. The notification itself is not the decision to leave. It is exactly as stated on the label – a notification of a decision already made.

Yet, we find in the High Court judgement the rather remarkable assertion (para 19) that the court is called upon to apply the constitutional law of the United Kingdom to determine whether the Crown has prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 to trigger the process of withdrawal from the European Union.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the Government should not be permitted to make that notification, and should require Parliamentary assent before so doing.

We thus have a situation where the decision of the Government to leave the EU is not being challenged. Simply, it is argued that Parliamentary approval should be required before it (the Government) obeys treaty law and puts its decision into effect.

This seems illogical. The sequence here is that Parliament has chosen to refer to the people the question of whether to remain in or leave the EU, that the people have chosen to leave and the Government, as a direct result of that vote, has decided that the UK should leave the EU.

Now it is argued that, before the Government can comply with treaty law, which it is obliged to do by virtue of the ECA – a fully-fledged Act of Parliament – it must get the permission of Parliament. Effectively, it is being asked to get permission from Parliament to obey an Act of Parliament.

In this scenario, it is theoretically possible that Parliament could refuse permission. The practical effects of that need not concern us yet. But, the Government is still obligated to execute the will of the people – a "political" rather than a legal commitment.

Having been blocked from invoking the treaty provision, however, the Government might have little option but to fall back on Article 62 of the VCLT and unilaterally abrogate the EU treaties – relying on Crown prerogative for its authority.

It would then be open for some other activist to emerge and launch another Judicial Review – and one assumes that would be necessary as this case only covers the use of Article 50. But the point would have been made. The Government is responding to the will of the people. Those invoking Parliamentary sovereignty are seeking to block it.

This is why I though that the Courts should reject the invitation to get involved in what amounts to a dispute between the executive and parliament. And in due course, I hope the Supreme Court will reject this presumptive and illogical case.

Precisely what the judges will do – and I note that, for the first time in history the full panel is to sit – is anyone's guess. But my strongest suspicion is that the outcome has already been decided. Mrs May will get her way.

piquant wrote: That rather weak offer secured by Cameron was rejected, so too rejected were treaties from '72 onwards. It'd be both wrong and irresponsible to take a guess now that one knew why people had voted as they did and say that must inform what comes next. All we've got is leave, which isn't in any way a clear mandate, and we're now stuck spending billions on whatever the hell it is we end up with.

easyray wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:
Rubbish, a mandate is assumed based on a party manifesto and who knows why individuals voted on which bits and which bits they did not care for. It was clear that free movement was an issue and that the people wanted more concession than limiting their benefits. Next step is ending it, if not FOM, if not sovereignty if not the offers made, what did they vote for? What did they want to change? Remaining in the single market changes nothing other than a membership badge. They voted to change something not for the semantics. They didn't want so many rules handed down, they didn't like getting told what to do etc. They didn't vote to continue that and it was quite clear which rules they didn't like in particular.

I can count the number of people I know who voted out on those issues on one hand, whereas the number of people who voted out as a 'fcuk you' to the government where by far the majority. Tbf, a lot of them don't even understand what the issues where about, and some didn't give two fcuks about immigration or sovereignty. What they cared about was the bills they have to pay, their wages (in some cases their benefits) and how much of a struggle they were going through. The leave campaign (and the right wing press) tapped into this nicely by blaming it all on the EU and like they knew it would, the people believed the EU was to blame for all their problems.

That was the reality in my part of the world, and very much so in the valleys' as well, from what I have heard from friends I know there. And if Brexit starts to hurt them financially even more than they are hurting now, they will turn on the people who fed them the bullshit in the first place. You might get your civil disorder yet, but it may not be for the reasons you seem to think.

village wrote:

SamShark wrote:It's a sad day when Gary Lineker is now one of the nation's most sensible commentators.

I'm pretty sure his twitter feed is handled by his latest 17 year old wife though.

DragsterDriver wrote:

village wrote:

SamShark wrote:It's a sad day when Gary Lineker is now one of the nation's most sensible commentators.

I'm pretty sure his twitter feed is handled by his latest 17 year old wife though.

Pretty unsavoury chap is Gary, can't be far off some dirt appearing soon.

SamShark wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

village wrote:

SamShark wrote:It's a sad day when Gary Lineker is now one of the nation's most sensible commentators.

I'm pretty sure his twitter feed is handled by his latest 17 year old wife though.

Pretty unsavoury chap is Gary, can't be far off some dirt appearing soon.

Secretly loves Tesco own brand crisps

easyray wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:
Rubbish, a mandate is assumed based on a party manifesto and who knows why individuals voted on which bits and which bits they did not care for. It was clear that free movement was an issue and that the people wanted more concession than limiting their benefits. Next step is ending it, if not FOM, if not sovereignty if not the offers made, what did they vote for? What did they want to change? Remaining in the single market changes nothing other than a membership badge. They voted to change something not for the semantics. They didn't want so many rules handed down, they didn't like getting told what to do etc. They didn't vote to continue that and it was quite clear which rules they didn't like in particular.

I can count the number of people I know who voted out on those issues on one hand, whereas the number of people who voted out as a 'fcuk you' to the government where by far the majority. Tbf, a lot of them don't even understand what the issues where about, and some didn't give two fcuks about immigration or sovereignty. What they cared about was the bills they have to pay, their wages (in some cases their benefits) and how much of a struggle they were going through. The leave campaign (and the right wing press) tapped into this nicely by blaming it all on the EU and like they knew it would, the people believed the EU was to blame for all their problems.

That was the reality in my part of the world, and very much so in the valleys' as well, from what I have heard from friends I know there. And if Brexit starts to hurt them financially even more than they are hurting now, they will turn on the people who fed them the bullshit in the first place. You might get your civil disorder yet, but it may not be for the reasons you seem to think.

dr dre2 wrote:

easyray wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:
Rubbish, a mandate is assumed based on a party manifesto and who knows why individuals voted on which bits and which bits they did not care for. It was clear that free movement was an issue and that the people wanted more concession than limiting their benefits. Next step is ending it, if not FOM, if not sovereignty if not the offers made, what did they vote for? What did they want to change? Remaining in the single market changes nothing other than a membership badge. They voted to change something not for the semantics. They didn't want so many rules handed down, they didn't like getting told what to do etc. They didn't vote to continue that and it was quite clear which rules they didn't like in particular.

I can count the number of people I know who voted out on those issues on one hand, whereas the number of people who voted out as a 'fcuk you' to the government where by far the majority. Tbf, a lot of them don't even understand what the issues where about, and some didn't give two fcuks about immigration or sovereignty. What they cared about was the bills they have to pay, their wages (in some cases their benefits) and how much of a struggle they were going through. The leave campaign (and the right wing press) tapped into this nicely by blaming it all on the EU and like they knew it would, the people believed the EU was to blame for all their problems.

That was the reality in my part of the world, and very much so in the valleys' as well, from what I have heard from friends I know there. And if Brexit starts to hurt them financially even more than they are hurting now, they will turn on the people who fed them the bullshit in the first place. You might get your civil disorder yet, but it may not be for the reasons you seem to think.

You are suggesting people didn't vote for actual reasons, they chose to vote out of the European union just for spite? Are you serious? That's not the real world, what also is the real world is people not being bothered to tell you why they voted because they didn't want the hassle of being judged if they broadcast it. The reasons were clear, people do not vote for the drastic on a whim.

A sample of 12,369, spite doesn't seem to crop up.

msp. wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:

easyray wrote:

dr dre2 wrote:
Rubbish, a mandate is assumed based on a party manifesto and who knows why individuals voted on which bits and which bits they did not care for. It was clear that free movement was an issue and that the people wanted more concession than limiting their benefits. Next step is ending it, if not FOM, if not sovereignty if not the offers made, what did they vote for? What did they want to change? Remaining in the single market changes nothing other than a membership badge. They voted to change something not for the semantics. They didn't want so many rules handed down, they didn't like getting told what to do etc. They didn't vote to continue that and it was quite clear which rules they didn't like in particular.

I can count the number of people I know who voted out on those issues on one hand, whereas the number of people who voted out as a 'fcuk you' to the government where by far the majority. Tbf, a lot of them don't even understand what the issues where about, and some didn't give two fcuks about immigration or sovereignty. What they cared about was the bills they have to pay, their wages (in some cases their benefits) and how much of a struggle they were going through. The leave campaign (and the right wing press) tapped into this nicely by blaming it all on the EU and like they knew it would, the people believed the EU was to blame for all their problems.

That was the reality in my part of the world, and very much so in the valleys' as well, from what I have heard from friends I know there. And if Brexit starts to hurt them financially even more than they are hurting now, they will turn on the people who fed them the bullshit in the first place. You might get your civil disorder yet, but it may not be for the reasons you seem to think.

You are suggesting people didn't vote for actual reasons, they chose to vote out of the European union just for spite? Are you serious? That's not the real world, what also is the real world is people not being bothered to tell you why they voted because they didn't want the hassle of being judged if they broadcast it. The reasons were clear, people do not vote for the drastic on a whim.

A sample of 12,369, spite doesn't seem to crop up.

So you arguing that people did not vote leave by quoting a study on reasons why people voted which does not give that as an option and seems to assume that people had a logical well thoughtful reason.

Mahoney wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

Grotesquely irresponsible. That's the really frightening aspect of this whole thing - the way popular anger is being whipped up by papers like this and demagogues like Farage.

The referendum was not rigged, leave won. The government has not sought to wriggle out of it. Every indication is that parliament will not attempt to block departure. Yet one legal decision in favour of parliamentary sovereignty and you get inflammatory nonsense like this.

My concerns about leave were fairly prosaic; I feel no great affection for either the institution or its vision, I just suspect that a 'hard' leave will be economically very painful and I don't see the point of a 'soft' leave that seems to offer much the same as we had before only without the influence. Still, not the end of the world and I was and am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

The behaviours it has unleashed, however, I find genuinely alarming. I really thought we were a more mature and established polity than this.

fisgard792 wrote:

piquant wrote: That rather weak offer secured by Cameron was rejected, so too rejected were treaties from '72 onwards. It'd be both wrong and irresponsible to take a guess now that one knew why people had voted as they did and say that must inform what comes next. All we've got is leave, which isn't in any way a clear mandate, and we're now stuck spending billions on whatever the hell it is we end up with.

all you could ever get was leave, are you saying even though the leave block vote won the majority, unless one particular part of the leave vote (hard, soft, squelchy) is the majority, you have to go with the minority block no

JJR wrote:That chart saying reasons people voted to leave is interesting. I hope Remainers can at last reconcile the top reason had bugger all to do with immigration.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

JJR wrote:That chart saying reasons people voted to leave is interesting. I hope Remainers can at last reconcile the top reason had bugger all to do with immigration.

It's interesting that dr dre cites it having previously claimed that there is a mandate for leaving the EU to limit immigration. Get your story straight chief

Mahoney wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

Grotesquely irresponsible. That's the really frightening aspect of this whole thing - the way popular anger is being whipped up by papers like this and demagogues like Farage.

The referendum was not rigged, leave won. The government has not sought to wriggle out of it. Every indication is that parliament will not attempt to block departure. Yet one legal decision in favour of parliamentary sovereignty and you get inflammatory nonsense like this.

My concerns about leave were fairly prosaic; I feel no great affection for either the institution or its vision, I just suspect that a 'hard' leave will be economically very painful and I don't see the point of a 'soft' leave that seems to offer much the same as we had before only without the influence. Still, not the end of the world and I was and am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

The behaviours it has unleashed, however, I find genuinely alarming. I really thought we were a more mature and established polity than this.

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder if it's a map you can colour in yourself?

Mahoney wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

Grotesquely irresponsible. That's the really frightening aspect of this whole thing - the way popular anger is being whipped up by papers like this and demagogues like Farage.

The referendum was not rigged, leave won. The government has not sought to wriggle out of it. Every indication is that parliament will not attempt to block departure. Yet one legal decision in favour of parliamentary sovereignty and you get inflammatory nonsense like this.

My concerns about leave were fairly prosaic; I feel no great affection for either the institution or its vision, I just suspect that a 'hard' leave will be economically very painful and I don't see the point of a 'soft' leave that seems to offer much the same as we had before only without the influence. Still, not the end of the world and I was and am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

The behaviours it has unleashed, however, I find genuinely alarming. I really thought we were a more mature and established polity than this.

Margin_Walker wrote:

And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

Mahoney wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

Grotesquely irresponsible. That's the really frightening aspect of this whole thing - the way popular anger is being whipped up by papers like this and demagogues like Farage.

The referendum was not rigged, leave won. The government has not sought to wriggle out of it. Every indication is that parliament will not attempt to block departure. Yet one legal decision in favour of parliamentary sovereignty and you get inflammatory nonsense like this.

My concerns about leave were fairly prosaic; I feel no great affection for either the institution or its vision, I just suspect that a 'hard' leave will be economically very painful and I don't see the point of a 'soft' leave that seems to offer much the same as we had before only without the influence. Still, not the end of the world and I was and am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

The behaviours it has unleashed, however, I find genuinely alarming. I really thought we were a more mature and established polity than this.

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way.

sewa wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way.

They made a judgement based upon their interpretation of the law. Its not X factor you clown, popular opinion is not their job

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way. The EU is an attempt to destroy UK democracy. The people have clearly voted to say no more to this process and they want out. These judges want to hinder the will of the voters. So whats going on?

sturginho wrote:

sewa wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way.

They made a judgement based upon their interpretation of the law. Its not X factor you clown, popular opinion is not their job

Wait, so Simon Cowell was not one of the judges???

DragsterDriver wrote:I didn't think people bothered with newspapers any longer.

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way.

Dai another day wrote:From what i can gather the Judges were by no means independent.

This is a great stain on British democracy.

piquant wrote:
I don't think we could fairly describe Simon as openly gay.

piquant wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way. The EU is an attempt to destroy UK democracy. The people have clearly voted to say no more to this process and they want out. These judges want to hinder the will of the voters. So whats going on?

When did the people vote to say they wanted UK law and the administration of them by UK courts removed? It does rather feel like someone should have mentioned this

Chuckles1188 wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I didn't think people bothered with newspapers any longer.

Their irrelevance was called far too early. Their circulation doesn't have to be high for the impact to be felt - just knowing someone who has read one has an impact with relation to a particular story.

Mahoney wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

Grotesquely irresponsible. That's the really frightening aspect of this whole thing - the way popular anger is being whipped up by papers like this and demagogues like Farage.

The referendum was not rigged, leave won. The government has not sought to wriggle out of it. Every indication is that parliament will not attempt to block departure. Yet one legal decision in favour of parliamentary sovereignty and you get inflammatory nonsense like this.

My concerns about leave were fairly prosaic; I feel no great affection for either the institution or its vision, I just suspect that a 'hard' leave will be economically very painful and I don't see the point of a 'soft' leave that seems to offer much the same as we had before only without the influence. Still, not the end of the world and I was and am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

The behaviours it has unleashed, however, I find genuinely alarming. I really thought we were a more mature and established polity than this.