Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • “The King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”: so concluded The Case of Proclamations in 1610. Sir Edward Coke’s ruling helped confirm the sovereignty of parliament. Four hundred years later, the English High Court is absolutely correct to cite that ruling and affirm that principle. It has found that the government cannot trigger Article 50, initiating the UK’s departure from the EU, without parliamentary approval.

    The High Court thunderbolt requires that parliament passes a bill to invoke Article 50, adding to uncertainty. European leaders, struggling with Britain’s decision to leave the EU, will be even more perplexed. Brexiters complain that the will of the people is being subverted. But this is the rule of law; it is how UK democracy works.

    The European Communities Act of 1972 put the UK into Europe. The government claimed that it could use its prerogative powers — derivatives of the royal prerogative — to reverse that decision by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which provides an out clause for members. The court struck down this argument, finding that the ECA was designed “to introduce EU law into domestic law”. This is precisely the feature to which the Leave camp objects so strongly, and puts the matter firmly under the authority of parliament. The constitutionalists in the Leave camp should have no problem with the primacy of parliament.

    Constitutions, however, draw their strength from the will of the people. The UK voted to leave the European Union in the June referendum. Parliamentary debate of Article 50 should not serve as an occasion to overturn that verdict. The debate will however offer an opportunity to bring much-needed transparency to the process and terms of the divorce. This is essential, given that the referendum question ran to all of 11 words, none of which was, for example, “Article 50,” “trade,” or “immigration”. The motives behind the June vote were many. Anyone claiming to know what the referendum really means — beyond a simple decision to leave — is either speculating or has partisan goods to sell.

    Theresa May appears to have interpreted the referendum as a mandate to prioritise the restriction of free movement over free trade. This may well be what the electorate wants. Just the same, to pursue this principle within a closed circle of advisers is wrong, all the more so when the government that Mrs May leads was elected on a manifesto of remaining in the single market. The referendum itself has advisory force rather than constitutional standing. Its meaning must be fleshed out in an open discussion. Parliamentary debate will provide this.

    The government says it will appeal against the ruling. If it loses again, it may be tempted to call a snap election. Given the shambolic state of the Labour opposition, the Conservatives might see a chance to establish both a larger majority and a mandate to negotiate its preferred form of Brexit.

    This would be unwise: it would muddle the core issue of the UK’s relationship with Europe with other domestic political fights. Mrs May should pursue an election only if parliament shirks its duties and allows the debate to descend into intractability, or defies the result of the referendum outright.

    Mrs May should present parliament with a green paper and a bill setting out, in broad terms, how her government intends to approach negotiations. This is sensitive; she cannot afford to show Europe too much of her hand. Parliament’s role is not to set the negotiating position but to establish national priorities before these hugely consequential negotiations begin.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zara View Post
      Tankie, its you - you dont seem to understand what democracy is.
      zara , go to the cenotaph on the 11th of the 11TH and count the numbers who died for democracy , to save us from , that orrid bohemian cpl called Adolf , a DICTATOR ,, thats just one of many ? and you zara do not have a clue what democracy is , google one of R Reagans speeches , it tells you everything you need to know ,,here endeth the last lesson , now if you wish to discuss anything else ,,please ,,do it with someone who gives a care over dictatorship and anarchy and the oncoming street violence which is coming if the DEMOCRATIC vote is not upheld , ps loadsa jobs in govt will soon be on the cards if not , ttfn enjoy your day , xx

      oops just seen your last post and ref age old dead kings ,,go read magna carta sec 61 ,,bye hun xx and as for May n the tories with exit strategies etc etc , their arrogance dictated they didnt need one , they underestimated everything , hence camoron bailing out ,,do you get it yet .
      Last edited by tankie; 04 Nov 16,, 11:55.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tankie View Post
        Enlighten me then on how it works Zara ,,one Q for you , just answer truthfully, do you or do you not believe in DEMOCRACY as that is what is at stake here , regardless of how you voted and wished for , DEMOCRACY , yes or no , oh n ps , the posts I posted were to show the power of feeling as to what has been done today ,, so Zara , yes or no .Dya know , i even said well done to you for having the power of your convictions in your decision to re,locate ?? now what ?

        Heres some help to show you how the tories thought and promised , camoron promised a referendum and there would not be another after it , MPs voted 6 to 1 for the referendum ,,oops ,out wasnt suposed to be the way it was meant to be , so now the world is watching to see just how our govt refuses to accept democracy ,or does it accept ???? loophole loopholes ,

        ITS DEMOCRACY AND THAT FOR WHICH IT STANDS IS AT STAKE HERE , NOT CORPORATE BLOODY GREED AND POLITICIANS LIES .

        [ATTACH]42455[/ATTACH]
        In case you missed their poster .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tankie View Post
          zara , go to the cenotaph on the 11th of the 11TH and count the numbers who died for democracy , to save us from , that orrid bohemian cpl called Adolf , a DICTATOR ,, thats just one of many ? and you zara do not have a clue what democracy is , google one of R Reagans speeches , it tells you everything you need to know ,,here endeth the last lesson , now if you wish to discuss anything else ,,please ,,do it with someone who gives a care over dictatorship and anarchy and the oncoming street violence which is coming if the DEMOCRATIC vote is not upheld , ps loadsa jobs in govt will soon be on the cards if not , ttfn enjoy your day , xx

          oops just seen your last post and ref age old dead kings ,,go read magna carta sec 61 ,,bye hun xx
          Democracy does not begin and end with your referendum Tankie. Bringing up emotional images of World War 2 gets you nowhere, and Iím not interested in stirring patriotic speeches of dead presidents. British Democracy is based on the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. There is nowhere for plebiscite in there. It has no power. The Legislative voted 6 to 1 as you say for an advisory non-binding referendum. The PM tried to take that advisory referendum and grab power for the executive. The courts stopped her. That is the correct separation of powers in a democracy. Iím sorry you canít seem to grasp that.
          The reference to The Case of Proclamations in 1610, is pertinent to the High court case. It seems pretty obvious you haven't even bothered to read what the case was about, so itís not surprising you donít understand the verdict.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zara View Post
            democracy does not begin and end with your referendum tankie. Bringing up emotional images of world war 2 gets you nowhere, and i’m not interested in stirring patriotic speeches of dead presidents. British democracy is based on the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. There is nowhere for plebiscite in there. It has no power. The legislative voted 6 to 1 as you say for an advisory non-binding referendum. The pm tried to take that advisory referendum and grab power for the executive. The courts stopped her. That is the correct separation of powers in a democracy. I’m sorry you can’t seem to grasp that.
            The reference to the case of proclamations in 1610, is pertinent to the high court case. It seems pretty obvious you haven't even bothered to read what the case was about, so it’s not surprising you don’t understand the verdict.

            Goodbye . well pops always told me ,,never argue with a female , guess he was right ,and it was not just MY DEMOCRACY was it , you voted also , so its your dem as well , and it aint just ww2 , its all of them , so why dont you try a bit of respect . ;ps people are being killed this very time fighting for hmmm democracy , or put another way corporate greed and politicians lies . ta ra zara


            edited that bit , it might confuse you .


            but this is good from your post


            The European Communities Act of 1972 put the UK into Europe.

            now tell me zara , when is an act ,,,,,,,, LAW ??
            Last edited by tankie; 04 Nov 16,, 12:27.

            Comment


            • Lose the argument and you resort to misogynistic insults. Typical.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by zara View Post
                Lose the argument and you resort to misogynistic insults. Typical.
                hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha which ,,"argument " is that then zara , mysogynistic ,my my thats a big word lololol

                this DEBATE perhaps


                democracy

                DefinitionsSynonyms

                Follow @dictionarycom
                follow Dictionary.com

                World Series Quiz
                Favorite Button
                CITE
                Translate
                Facebook
                Share
                Twitter
                Tweet
                Google+
                Share
                democracy
                [dih-mok-ruh-see]
                Spell Syllables
                Examples Word Origin
                See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
                noun, plural democracies.
                1.
                government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


                Goodbye zara , long live democracy .

                But as i stated earlier , its not been overturned YET we must wait n see how our elected people vote ,if they vote or not that on the matter in hand , if overturned what does that make of promises and democracy , jobs will be in peril methinks , etcetera etcetera , but a vote will take some time to come around wont it , ?? which if democracy is observed , ita a totaly illegitimate unnecessary vote , lets see who gets the backhanders huh.

                The Government has conceded that the requirement to obtain parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 could delay Brexit by a year.
                This is simply unacceptable and those who cherish democracy, whether you voted Leave or Remain have the right to be outraged. Yesterday's High Court ruling, which has been ill-defined by some as being solely about "process, not politics" is a thinly disguised attempt to defy the will of the British people and delay Brexit indefinitely.
                Parliament is sovereign, until a time when it chooses to delegate responsibility to the electorate it represents - as it did in the EU referendum. The British people gave their representatives a clear instruction on June 23rd and, for the sake of democracy, our decision to leave the European Union must be honoured.

                This action can and probably will cause a snap G/Election ,rough times ahead .
                Last edited by tankie; 04 Nov 16,, 13:30.

                Comment


                • Some conflicting views here on both sides .

                  Prospect of early general election increases after High Court rules Government cannot trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval



                  Laura Hughes, political correspondent

                  3 NOVEMBER 2016 • 3:44PM
                  The High Court has ruled that the Government does not have power to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval and a vote from MPs.

                  Campaigners have won their battle over Theresa May's decision to use the royal prerogative in her Brexit strategy to start the process of leaving the European Union.

                  David Davis, the Secretary of State for leaving the EU, has said the judgement at the Courts today will require legislation to be passed by Parliament if the Government's appeal to the Supreme Court fails.

                  He insisted "the people are sovereign" as he defended the Government's decision to appeal against the court's judgment.

                  MPs have suggested that Mrs May could be forced to call a snap general election next year to ensure she has enough supportive MPs to get her Brexit plan through the House of Commons.

                  This morning the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the government's arguments are "contrary to fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament".

                  View image on Twitter

                  Summary of high court decision against government
                  10:17 AM - 3 Nov 2016

                  Adding: "The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it."

                  Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner who is leading the campaign against the government, has been accused by the Attorney General of attempting to subvert the democratic will of the British people.

                  Theresa May announced last month that she intends to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year.


                  Following a three-day hearing in October the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas - sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales - gave their ruling this morning.

                  Jeremy Wright QC, the Attorney General, had argued a legal move launched by Ms Miller to stop the Prime Minister triggering Article 50 would be a “backdoor” attempt to bypass the Brexit vote.


                  But he did not turn up in Court this morning to hear the ruling.

                  The case was brought by a group calling itself People’s Challenge, which has raised more than £160,000 to fund its legal costs since it was launched in the wake of the referendum.


                  3:44pm
                  Court ruling 'might delay slightly' triggering of Article 50
                  Dominic Grieve, the former Tory Attorney General, has told Sky news that he believes the court ruling "might delay slightly” the triggering of Article 50.

                  He said the court judgement was “utterly rational” and that the government was in no position to trigger Brexit.

                  “The issue in front of the High Court was whether you could undo statute law by a proclamation, by the use of the royal prerogative saying ‘we are leaving the EU’, thereby depriving large numbers of people in this country of statutory rights enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom which they currently enjoy,” the Conservative MP told Sky.

                  “And what the judges said is ‘you can’t do that’. So what’s needed is for the Government, I think, to introduce a piece of primary legislation.”

                  He said the legislation would not “necessarily” entail a delay to the Government’s timetable.

                  “You can get primary legislation through Parliament quite quickly. It’s been known to be done in 48 hours but that’s as an emergency. I don’t think we’re talking about that.

                  “It might delay slightly the triggering of Article 50, but it’s worth bearing in mind that the Government isn’t ready to trigger Article 50 itself at the moment at all because it doesn’t really know at the moment what it’s going to do next.”

                  Dominic Grieve MP
                  Dominic Grieve MP CREDIT: EDDIE MULHOLLAND
                  3:14pm
                  Allow a vote before Court appeal, says MP
                  Nick Herbert, the Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, had this to say in the Commons earlier:

                  Since a majority of members of this House would vote to trigger Article 50 but want further reassurance about the terms of Brexit, could I suggest to you that whatever the legal position, it would be wise of the Government to allow a discussion and vote on the plan before it finds that one way or the other it is required to offer that.

                  Sir Edward Leigh, the Tory MP for Gainsborough, added:

                  Why should we fear a debate on the substantive motion? It would be a brave Member of Parliament that voted against the will of the people.

                  When it comes to Brexit the only thing to fear is fear itself. Let's get on with it.


                  3:11pm
                  Brexiteers react with fury to outrageous court decision
                  Brexiteers react with fury to outrageous court decisionPlay! 01:43
                  3:02pm
                  Davis: We would need a full Act of Parliament
                  David Davis, the Secretary of State for leaving the EU, has told the BBC that the judgement at the Courts today will require legislation to be passed by Parliament if the Government's appeal to the Supreme Court fails.

                  Follow
                  Laura Kuenssberg ✔ @bbclaurak
                  David Davis says the judgement at the Courts today would require legislation to be passed by Parliament
                  2:38 PM - 3 Nov 2016
                  46 46 Retweets 55 55 likes
                  "The people have spoken on this we've got the biggest mandate in history, the result of the referendum must be respected.

                  "Parliament voted by 6 to 1 to give the decision to the people no ifs or buts and that's why we are appealing this to get on with delivering the best deal for Britain, the best deal for growth, the best deal for investment, the best deal for jobs. The people want us to get on with this and that's what we intend to do.

                  "The judges have laid out what we can't do but not exactly what we can do, but we're presuming it requires an act of parliament therefore both the Commons and the Lords.

                  "The first thing to say is this was the decision of the British people that decision was taken after a 6 to 1 vote in the commons to give the decision to the British people so that's why we're appealing it and we're appealing it intending to win that appeal so we can deliver the best deal for Britain... that's what the government is about; delivering the mandate the people laid down in the best way in the best national interest.

                  "Well parliament is sovereign, has been sovereign but of course the people are sovereign, the people are the ones parliament represents, 17.4m of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to leave the EU and we're going to deliver on that mandate in the best way possible for the British national interest ... and we're going to do that, the people want us to get on with it and that's what we're going to do.

                  David Davis, U.K. exiting the European Union secretary
                  David Davis, U.K. exiting the European Union secretary CREDIT: CHRIS RATCLIFFE/BLOOMBERG
                  2:56pm
                  Corbyn: Parliament must have its say on Brexit
                  Corbyn: Parliament must have its say on BrexitPlay! 00:53
                  2:35pm
                  'Labour voters chose Leave'
                  John Mills, the Labour donor and Brexit backer, has also responded to the verdict.

                  I find it inconceivable that MPs would take a stand against the clear wishes of their own constituents - especially in the 70 per cent of Labour constituencies that voted Leave.

                  Many MPs may well have voted Remain but they are aware that they represent the people in their area and, in my view, they have a duty to reflect those people’s majority view.

                  Labour voters chose Leave because the EU is bad for working people, their families and their future. Nothing has changed since the referendum.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zara View Post
                    “The King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”: so concluded The Case of Proclamations in 1610. Sir Edward Coke’s ruling helped confirm the sovereignty of parliament.
                    Yea but Charles ll contested this with the 'Divine Right of Kings' etc and the legality or not of each view was decided not in a court but on the battlefields of the Civil War.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      Yea but Charles ll contested this with the 'Divine Right of Kings' etc and the legality or not of each view was decided not in a court but on the battlefields of the Civil War.
                      And in 1681 Charles used the 'Divine Right of Kings' to dissolve the English Parliament.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                        hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha which ,,"argument " is that then zara , mysogynistic ,my my thats a big word lololol
                        No. Its a little word, deployed by little men.

                        Comment


                        • So what I see here is that the Court has decided that plebiscite may have told the Government which way to go, per interpretation of English Law the Executive does not have the power to execute the results of the plebiscite without the advise and consent of the Legislature?

                          It is not stopping or reversing the decision nor a call that the decision was unconstitutional. Rather it is a call that the procedure above must be followed.

                          BREXIT or NO is not the issue...it is the procedure.

                          Am I correct here?
                          ďLoyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.Ē
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            BREXIT or NO is not the issue...it is the procedure.

                            Am I correct here?
                            Well yes but the additional point is that it is perceived (and probably true) that the majority of MPs would favour the UK remaining in Europe and the Government's majority is wafer thin; in the Lords the Government has no majority. So people like tankie fear the matter being referred back to Parliament although they claimed to want to restore the sovereignty of Parliament by urging us to vote 'leave'.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              So what I see here is that the Court has decided that plebiscite may have told the Government which way to go, per interpretation of English Law the Executive does not have the power to execute the results of the plebiscite without the advise and consent of the Legislature?

                              It is not stopping or reversing the decision nor a call that the decision was unconstitutional. Rather it is a call that the procedure above must be followed.

                              BREXIT or NO is not the issue...it is the procedure.

                              Am I correct here?
                              Almost!
                              The court said that the prerogative cannot be used to strip a citizen of his or her rights under domestic law. Only parliament can do that.
                              Leaving the EU removes the citizenship of some 60 million people and strips them of many rights, (in most cases against their will).
                              The plebiscite was advisory and as such was a legal non-event.
                              Everything else you said is correct.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zara View Post
                                And in 1681 Charles used the 'Divine Right of Kings' to dissolve the English Parliament.
                                The Monarch always dissolves Parliament under the Royal Prerogative. Forgive my earlier mistake but it was Charles l who insisted on the 'Divine right' and thus lost his head. As I recall it the actual legal issue that started the Civil War was to do with Ship tax - a tax traditionally only imposed on coastal towns (the Cinque Ports etc) for the funding of the navy. Charles l wanted to impose the tax on all and it was argued successfully in the courts that he needed Parliament's authorisation before such a change could be made. He refused to call a Parliament and sent out royal tax collectors as well as borrowing from the French, arguably the greater crime.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X