The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.7K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 41 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 478 Fun & Games
- 139 BA Predictor Threads
- 43 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 324 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 133 Current West Ham
- 209 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 33 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 30 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 431 Match Threads
- 99 MOTM
- 11 West Ham Nostalgia
- 36 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 40 Transfers
- 48 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 56 Internationals
- 49 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 125 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 273 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Do you mean individual MPs voting on this Triggering Bill (which sounds a bit ;cowboy )?
It is highly likely that if they vote according to what the majority of their constituents want, at least some would have to vote to remain.
;hmm
If we have a vote on when/if we trigger article 50 and the MP's block it then we are going to look jolly stupid going cap in hand back to the EU hoping that they didn't notice our little flirtation with the greener grass...
There should have been much clearer guidelines before we voted so that we would know what the next process would be following the result. Unfortunately the powers that be didn't realise that so many people would vote to leave.
Would like to get your take on a few things:
Had there been a 'slender majority' in favour of remaining would you still be arguing that 'it was only advisory' and could be legitimately impeded by an 'individual' bringing a high court action?
What's your view on the process whereby an individual can challenge the government in the high court on this? And are you comfortable with the motives she claimed to be behind her action.
Do you not think it strange that none of the high profile remainers - politicians, arts, business etc. Chose not to bring such an action - or associate themselves with the action until the outcome was announced?
Do you have a view on how the individual funded this action and whether she personally funded the ranks of Barristers lined up behind her? If not, who do you think actually funded the action? And what were their motives in remaining anonymous?
Not having a go at you - just interested in your, or others, thoughts on these matters.
The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.
A vote to change something, generally speaking, is usually examined far more thoroughly in business and in most peoples lives, than an agreement to keep things as they are. That doesn't mean no investigation/discussion, just less of one imo.
I am not bothered by her stated or unstated motives. Or allegations or insinuation abdout what they might or might not have been.
Or who paid (initially, since now the costs will largely have to be borne by the losing side.) And how much of it came from 1 person, and how much from crowdfunding via named or anonymous donations.
I'm completely unbothered about who didn't get involved with it, and why.
Finally, on the matter of it being only advisory - nobody has to argue anything, as it is not a matter of opinion. Rather it is a matter of fact, as under current UK law a referendum is not legally binding unless the statute which puts it in place expressly says that it will be binding. Which this one didn't. So it isn't.
However having read up on this more this afternoon I now actually think that this could be a blessing as if the MP's and then the Lords do pass an act of parliament to go ahead with the triggering of article 50 then it completely takes away the argument that it was undemocratic.
Also with regards to a snap election being called, given that 70% of Labour constituencies voted with a majority leave it will be either very brave, or very catastrophic for them to go against that. Of course they may pick up new voters who don't want to leave, but given that the majority of remain votes came in the cities are there enough seats there to outweigh the leaves in the rural areas?
Can the govt remove existing legal rights and protections from UK citizens on their own authority, just because they want to (for whatever reason).
The High Court looked at the law, and said NO.
Parliament is the only body authorised to do that.
Personally, that makes me very happy.
In response - I think had there been a slender majority for remain it would still have been advisory but there would be no aftermath as nothing would need be done as we would proceed as before. No case could have been brought that we should actually be leaving due to the referendum only being advisory as it would be clear that for subsequent change govt would need pass an act, which would need debating and voting for. In theory a general election victor could trigger article 50 after a vote in parliament even had remain won, but either way the point is the UK decides it's course through parliament. We don't actually need referendum to leave but we do need parliament and the lords as they are how our democracy has always worked. Referendum is essentially how parliament gauge the publics wishes, and why parliament may still vote fro brexit.
Challenging the Govt by an individual should be open to all as the Govt have a duty to apply the laws to themselves and this is what was being brought into question, the case was about needing parliament to repeal the 1972?. If a member of the public cannot apply for the laws to be upheld we may as well not have laws.
I don't think it strange that it was not a high profile complainant as the matter is so political and has been from the start.
I would imagine she is backed by some wealthy individuals using her case for their own ends to hopefully get an outcome that they prefer. But this is what everyone has done and does as money is power at these times, Ukip or at least the leave campaign was bankrolled quite heavily by Aaron Banks I believe because he hopes for a specific outcome, the newspapers supported Boris and Gove for their preferred outcome and someone is backing these claimants for their own interests.
I am not sure why the are seek to remain anonymous, it could be political or simply personal safety as I am sure this lady is looking over her shoulder at present, very sadly.
Ultimately there is a process and all the law courts have said today is that this process must be followed, the referendum did not trump due process of parliament and law. It has not reversed brexit in any way at all, just asked for it to take it's rightful place within the process rather than swallow up the whole process.
Obviously I am a remainer but if it gets through parliament and the lords I haven't got a leg to stand on and I will not be moaning (even though my opinion will remain), I just cant have that a 1.9% majority give TM the right to do as she pleases and call remainers undemocratic.
As an side it is becoming clearer she doesn't know what she is doing and I fear will not last long. This was reported below.
Theresa May is set to call EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to make it clear she intends to stick to the timetable for triggering Article 50 in March, the spokeswoman said.
If true she must know that as of today it is now currently and categorically out of her control to trigger article 50, it makes her look foolish to Juncker.
Just one point - in this type of action (review/direction) there is no process for awarding costs against the other party as it is not a 'win or lose' situation.
And I'm pleased that you are not bovvered about most of the questions I raised. ;wink
;puzzled I thought I had answered all of them. I will look back and see which I didn't, and if I have a view on it, I will post it. ;ok
In some of the coverage of the ruling, I saw this: I couldn't see whether the request was granted, but assume since requests were made, it is at least possible.
... if people feel so strongly about wanting to 'taking back control' from the unelected, safeguard 'democracy' and and ensure 'parliamentary sovereignty', they might think about abolishing the monarchy.
;biggrin
(Lobs that one in and runs away very fast ;run )
I'm sure the tax payers will be over the moon to fund such payments to the barristers who no doubt will be most grateful to their mates on the Bench.
And forgive me - I didn't mean to pose questions which might raise some coloured fish or stir up dirty ponds. ;biggrin
I'd like to hope those appointed as judges were impartial. If not, there's a lot bigger problems than Brexit...
I'm less happy that the govt have decided to appeal, at further cost, a decision they stand little change of overturning in practice and have little grounds for challenging in principle, given the thorough and detailed judgement that was handed down.
But that's just me.
"Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs,"
However, I'm not sure that's possible. ;hmm
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/article-50-fallout-sees-gina-millar-receive-death-threats-online_uk_581ba19fe4b020461a1bec57?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=-1760885140_uk
;hmm