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
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 35 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 416 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 300 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 402 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
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
;hmm ;doh
Or an Olympic gay? ;poormf
;lol
#overwrought
The paper version also has an interesting take on things... Considering one of the main reasons for the exit was to give power back to our own legal system....
I still think that Brexit will go ahead, but hopefully now with more of the remainers feeling that it is more of a compromise than the initial fear they had that it would be a harsh separation forced on them. Also by going through the courts and now parliament it takes away any issues of it not being democratic.
The judges have not ruled that we shouldn't leave, just that as per the law we need parliament to pass legislation to do so legally. Nothing wrong with that, so lets carry on and get parliament on to it.
The biggest pox on our country is undoubtedly the press, the daily mail should be like the viz comic and then it would be funny, but sadly many take it as truth.
Another funny quote today from the welsh secretary to follow Boris and his titanic gaff.
Mr Cairns claimed the UK was in a "strong position" on the Brexit negotiations as it had one of the world's fastest growing economies.
I think he needs recognise the difference between past and present tense, it's quite important when talking of economies prospects.