Brexit legal challenge suceeds. Discuss.

Drew_TNBD

Skipped said:

axisus said:

Could this lead to a Brentrance?

I would want:
Full tariff free access to Single Market
Free movement
Financial Passporting
Customs Union
Not in the Euro
Not in Schengen.

Where would you get a deal like that? 

I would want Japanese whores on every street corner.

Fretwired

Has anyone asked the EU what they want? No thought not. THey may not want us in their club anymore. A little known fact about A50 is ......



...they can trigger it .. :-)

fretmeister

For those who can't be bothered to read the actual judgment- or more likely refuse to have their incorrect understanding of the case corrected...

At a basic Janet and John level, all the case has done is make the government accountable to parliament.

And in doing so confirmed the sovereignty of parliament.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Limehouse_Blues

fretmeister said:

Evilmags said:

Bunch of idiot lawyers thinking they have greater say than a majority referendum. Evil, democracy denying fuck wits seems about right. 

You've already been proved wrong about that in the other thread.

By lawyers FOR the leaving side: in other words by your own side.

The super team of Queens Counsel paid for with no limits by the Treasury agreed during the trial that the courts were the proper place to resolve the argument.

If they thought there was even a 1% chance of arguing against the jurisdiction of the courts they would have done






Para 2: It is accepted by all sides.... etc.

Have a wis. I'm glad some are actually reading the judgment. The parties also agreed that an A50 notice is irrevocable and I think people are wrong to continue to focus on the revocability question. I suspect the government deliberately avoided using the 'notice is revocable' argument because they realised if they did so it would inevitably lead to a referral to the ECJ to opine on that question (of EU law) - a surreal and (for the government) politically intolerable outcome.

The implication of today's judgment is that the government must win on appeal to the Supreme Court or successfully get legislation through Parliament authorising them to send notice of withdrawal under Article 50. It's not inconceivable today's ruling will be overturned but it will require some serious mental gymnastics for the SC.

it seems quite possible the appeal will fail and we get stuck in parliamentary quagmire. None of this means Brexit will not happen and on balance I reckon it probably still will happen but the route to the exit door will be slower and more tortured.

fretmeister

Nice article from Robertson QC

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/high-court-ruling-article-50-brexit-eu-referendum-parliamentary-vote-leaving-european-union-british-a7395966.html

RandallFlagg

Does parliament really want to further alienate half the voting public who want Brexit by prolonging the inevitable?

Just get on with it FFS 

thebreeze

RandallFlagg said:

Does parliament really want to further alienate half the voting public who want Brexit by prolonging the inevitable?

Just get on with it FFS 

37% isn't "half the voting public".  (cue Brize)

digitalscream

RandallFlagg said:

Does parliament really want to further alienate half the voting public who want Brexit by prolonging the inevitable?

Just get on with it FFS 

Again, representative democracy: it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Limehouse_Blues

RandallFlagg said:

Does parliament really want to further alienate half the voting public who want Brexit by prolonging the inevitable?

Just get on with it FFS 

The rule of law is such a pain in the ar5e right? Trump or Putin wouldn't put up with this sort of thing that's for sure.

Heartfeltdawn

RandallFlagg said:

Does parliament really want to further alienate half the voting public who want Brexit by prolonging the inevitable?

Just get on with it FFS 

Does it make any difference if I feel alienated by the half of the voting public who don't understand how democracy works? 

PolarityMan

Well it suits me as I votes against but can see why it would piss leave voters off.

Drew_TNBD

Heartfeltdawn said:

RandallFlagg said:

Does parliament really want to further alienate half the voting public who want Brexit by prolonging the inevitable?

Just get on with it FFS 

Does it make any difference if I feel alienated by the half of the voting public who don't understand how democracy works? 

Are you in parliament? Can we see your high heeled boots?

Heartfeltdawn

Drew_TNBD said:

Are you in parliament? Can we see your high heeled boots?

The only boots I'd wear in Parliament would be jackboots at the time of the glorious revolution. 

Nice to see 38 Degrees parking an email around today talking of the DIY Brexit. Basically they accept we shall leave and it's talking about how MPs could get involved in order to make Brexit truly about improving things for the British people. No moaning, no whining, looking to the future. 

xSkarloey

octatonic said:

What is hilarious is *they* are equating this decision to mean that Parliament will circumvent triggering article 50 as though it is some liberal conspiracy.

Conspiracy is the key word. 



Dacre and the Mail in particular today have gone into full tin foil hat, 'they're out ta get me', woo-woo mode. 

fretmeister

I saw that.

Full attack on the judges personally with hardly a mention of the judgment itself.

ICBM

Feeling cheated for not getting their own way... now where have we heard that accusation before?

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

Here is the full judgment.

It is careful and considered.

There is nothing subversive or against democracy in it at all

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2768.html&query=(Gina)+AND+(Miller)

In fairness the main guy who funded the campaign to leave has no problem with it. It's not political. He's told May to abandon her appeal and get on with working with parliament. The only people whinging are the Tories who didn't do enough due diligence on their promises.

Labour are supporting Brexit but what will now happen is a divergence of views - Labour and the SNP will want access to the single market at all cost, passporting, would be happy with free movement and will want to keep most of the EU laws etc. The Tories will want to control immigration, repeal EU labour laws and will take it or leave it with the single market. No agreement - no vote. A general election next year may be the only solution. How to make your country a laughing stock in one easy lesson.

Cameron has a lot to answer for ... he's now officially my worst PM ever for getting us into this mess.

xSkarloey

Fretwired said:

fretmeister said:

Here is the full judgment.

It is careful and considered.

There is nothing subversive or against democracy in it at all

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2768.html&query=(Gina)+AND+(Miller)

In fairness the main guy who funded the campaign to leave has no problem with it. It's not political. He's told May to abandon her appeal and get on with working with parliament. The only people whinging are the Tories who didn't do enough due diligence on their promises.

Labour are supporting Brexit but what will now happen is a divergence of views - Labour and the SNP will want access to the single market at all cost, passporting, would be happy with free movement and will want to keep most of the EU laws etc. The Tories will want to control immigration, repeal EU labour laws and will take it or leave it with the single market. No agreement - no vote. A general election next year may be the only solution. How to make your country a laughing stock in one easy lesson.

Cameron has a lot to answer for ... he's now officially my worst PM ever for getting us into this mess.

@fretwired Shame there's only one wis I can give for that.

That was exactly my thought when I heard a radio station read out increasingly vituperative texts about remain/ leave this morning.

As we speak that bastard Cameron is probably hard at work on his memoirs and sounding out scriptwirters for his forthcoming tour of US campuses and business meetings. He's walked away laughing all the way to the bank,  the prick.

What a bloody mess.


And in no way has this put the argument to bed on the Tory benches. I tell you, the ghost of Enoch Powell stalks this country and Parliament at the moment. I'm not just talking about febrile community tensions either. I'm talking about the scorched earth logic that's taken hold in the minds of many. The Headbangers like Redwood, Hannan et al will never rest now.

Limehouse_Blues

Fretwired said:

Cameron has a lot to answer for ... he's now officially my worst PM ever for getting us into this mess.

Absolutely. Historians will not be kind to him and nor should they be. The guy is so lacking in self awareness he's probably still convinced he did the right thing by running the referendum. The U.K. Is seriously diminished by this entire saga. Newspaper attacks on the judges today are disgraceful and redolent of tin pot dictatorship, not the cradle of parliamentary democracy. The awful thing is that many of these newspaper editors are by no means ignorant of the U.K's history and its constitutional norms. I imagine that they do know better but that they set that set that knowledge aside to rail against judges demonstrates how truly mendacious they are.

Likewise guys like Rees Mogg and Kwarteng. Although neither is a lawyer you would have thought that the levels of education these sons of privilege have enjoyed should not have desensitized them to such central concepts as the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers. Clever people who are prepared to play fast and loose with constitutional norms born of centuries of struggle (and no small amount of bloodshed in the seventeenth century) are extremely dangerous.

On yesterday's decision I'd love to see the advice the government got before the referendum and during the passage of the legislation enabling the referendum. If you go back through Hansard you can see that Salmond asked a very probing question on whether the government thought a vote in Parliament would be needed prior to giving notice under A50. Now I can't stand Salmond but credit to him for having the foresight to perceive the risks and weaknesses of legislating for a purely advisory referendum while giving the voting public the impression it would have binding effect. At first the Secretary of State equivocated in response to Salmond but came back later in the debate (intra day) affirming that legal advice confirmed no vote would be necessary. So much for that advice. Does it even exist? I'm sceptical.

Cirrus

 ICBM said:

Feeling cheated for not getting their own way... now where have we heard that accusation before?

 ICBM if you were a woman I'd...


...well, you'd be too good for me.