Supreme Court

Brighton Mod · Dec 7, 2016

Del Fenner said:
Do you think that a government minister should have absolute power, or do you think that only Parliament should have ultimate power?

Can you not see any danger in a government doing whatever it likes without being accountable?

The government will be accountable at the next election, as is our parliamentary democracy as we are constantly reminded, as will those who are attempting to stall and water down Brexit. Lets have the vote on article 50 and see who has the determination to vote it down, because other than Scotland and those London Mps the rest will be in trouble at the next election. Come on Theresa call their bluff!

ROSM · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
The 'advisory' part of this has only emerged since the Referendum. If the vote had gone the other way, this word would never have been used.

Sorry but that's complete cobblers. Unless otherwise stated on the act, referenda are always advisory and Niger Farage himself knew that amd stated it

Theatre of Trees · Dec 7, 2016

Brighton Mod said:
The government will be accountable at the next election, as is our parliamentary democracy as we are constantly reminded, as will those who are attempting to stall and water down Brexit.

Watered down from what?

Gwylan · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
Bringing back capital punishment on a whim is one thing, implementing the result of a referendum, the contents of which had been debated in public for months, is quite another.

... a debate in which it was clear that the result was advisory. I'm not sure why you want to over-ride this decision.

This is nothing to do with whether someone supports remain or leave, it's to do with the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament. It's establishing the principle that everyone, even the prime minister, has to act in accordance with the legal structure of the land

Notters · Dec 7, 2016

Brighton Mod said:
those who are attempting to stall and water down Brexit.

I'd love to know what you mean by this. All the referendum was about is leaving the European Union. We could leave the European Union and leave EVERYTHING else (i.e. the laws, the amount we pay to the EU, etc.) the same, or equally we could change everything. These things were not part of the referendum and thus need debating in parliament.

happypig · Dec 7, 2016

Gwylan said:
... a debate in which it was clear that the result was advisory. I'm not sure why you want to over-ride this decision.

This is nothing to do with whether someone supports remain or leave, it's to do with the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament. It's establishing the principle that everyone, even the prime minister (except Tony Blair), has to act in accordance with the legal structure of the land

Corrected for you

Del Fenner · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
Not at all.

Bringing back capital punishment on a whim is one thing, implementing the result of a referendum, the contents of which had been debated in public for months, is quite another.

Interesting you mention, as a Remainer no doubt, about choosing which aspects of political debate/implementation of laws etc, one chooses to follow...

You seem unaware that people on both sides of the debate have grave concerns about a government arbitrarily appropriating power that it has never had to date to make changes which affect the rights of all British people, and reduce it all to a kind of weasling jiggery pokery to get out of something which is disliked.

Can you really, honestly, not see the difference?

Deleted member 22389 · Dec 7, 2016

If they dont trigger article 50 it will be another vote for UKIP.

The Large One · Dec 7, 2016

A referndum is advisory only; all referenda are. There's nothing to 'go back on', because nothing has been put forward in a point of law.

The public has NEVER made the laws in this country, only Parliament can do that. This is the basis of the entire argument - the referendum result has no validity in becoming laws - never has had. Pity those who voted Leave wishing to claim that Parliament is Sovereign have (a) no idea what that means and (b) have no desire to see it enacted.

Ignorance of the law is no argument for breaking it.

The Large One · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
Not at all.

Bringing back capital punishment on a whim is one thing, implementing the result of a referendum, the contents of which had been debated in public for months, is quite another.

Who is bringing back capital punishment on a whim?

A referendum on such an issue wouldn't mean it becomes law. The results of referenda don't decide laws - only Parliament does that.

The Large One · Dec 7, 2016

Gwylan said:
... a debate in which it was clear that the result was advisory. I'm not sure why you want to over-ride this decision.

This is nothing to do with whether someone supports remain or leave, it's to do with the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament. It's establishing the principle that everyone, even the prime minister, has to act in accordance with the legal structure of the land

A point so obvious, it's pretty awful it needs spelling out in such simple terms so often.

happypig said:
Corrected for you

In terms of going through Parliament - Tony Blair's war wasn't illegal. It was the case he made for the terms under which he went in (i.e. Saddam Hussein had WMD etc.) which was wrong. And seeing as his argument was based on lies, that's what made it illegal, not the process through which he sought Parliamentary approval.

Brighton Mod · Dec 7, 2016

Notters said:
I'd love to know what you mean by this. All the referendum was about is leaving the European Union. We could leave the European Union and leave EVERYTHING else (i.e. the laws, the amount we pay to the EU, etc.) the same, or equally we could change everything. These things were not part of the referendum and thus need debating in parliament.

Stalling the triggering of article 50 by demanding to see government plans, wanting to debate these plans, having the governments authority challenged in court. Watered down we leave the Eu but we are beholden to EU law, the movement of labour, payments to trade in EU. Those who are stirring the pot on this should think carefully on their future, the British electorate has shown what it is capable of, Cameron failed to recognise he got a majority because he promised a referendum, all parties got it wrong on the referendum and now they are taking the electorate for mugs with this prevarication and demanding to be heard. The transferring of the vote at the referendum into a general election, which the anachranism Kenneth Clark called an opinion poll, would give a governing party 442 seats. Politicians are not very clever, not very well informed and are calling it wrong again, the silent majority that delivered Brexit is waiting for general election and they will make themselves heard.

Theatre of Trees · Dec 7, 2016

Brighton Mod said:
Stalling the triggering of article 50 by demanding to see government plans, wanting to debate these plans, having the governments authority challenged in court. Watered down we leave the Eu but we are beholden to EU law, the movement of labour, payments to trade in EU. Those who are stirring the pot on this should think carefully on their future, the British electorate has shown what it is capable of, Cameron failed to recognise he got a majority because he promised a referendum, all parties got it wrong on the referendum and now they are taking the electorate for mugs with this prevarication and demanding to be heard. The transferring of the vote at the referendum into a general election, which the anachranism Kenneth Clark called an opinion poll, would give a governing party 442 seats. Politicians are not very clever, not very well informed and are calling it wrong again, the silent majority that delivered Brexit is waiting for general election and they will make themselves heard.

You seem incapable of understanding the fact that we voted to leave - We did not vote for the kind of settlement we would get. I think you need to readjust your tinfoil hat.

Here's what the voting slip looked like:

Taken from:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/638210/EU-referendum-ballot-paper-Brexit-vote-June-23

ThePompousPaladin · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
But that's not going to happen, is it? This is about a group of people who didn't get their way, trying every way possible to disrupt or influence something to suit their own wishes.

No. It really isn't. Brexit will happen, don't worry, there's quite a bit of admin to do first though (much of this could have been done first, blame the current government for not being able to organise it properly).
Parliament will follow through with brexit, there's a mandate for it, they have no option. But 52% didn't vote to rush things through without recourse to the laws of our land.

knocky1 · Dec 7, 2016

I'm very concerned by the repeated error in using referenda as the plural of referendum on NSC. The correct word is referendums. Those UKippers using referenda should be ashamed of themselves. They are ignoring the English plural for a Latin gerund plural that although OED lists as a possible plural has inherent flaws.

nicko31 · Dec 7, 2016

Theatre of Trees said:
You seem incapable of understanding the fact that we voted to leave - We did not vote for the kind of settlement we would get. I think you need to readjust your tinfoil hat.

Here's what the voting slip looked like:

Taken from:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/638210/EU-referendum-ballot-paper-Brexit-vote-June-23

Indeed the devil is the detail, a slim victory does not give a mandate to jump out of a plane without a parachute and hope there's a bed of feathers. 48% of people didn't vote for suicide and they have a voice too...

BensGrandad · Dec 7, 2016

The Large One said:
What did you think it was going to be - 'LA Law' - with everyone grandstanding for the cameras?

How is upholding the the British rule of law 'out of touch'?

The government wanted to flout the law - the High Court judges, as per their rights and obligations, made sure they didn't.

Mellotron said:
The Government tried to break the law - they were stopped. Trying to find the issue...

As I read it the people of this country voted and the government under the powers given them by the sovereign were going to carry out the wishes of the majority but some that lost decided that they shouldnt without consulting their minors. They wanted another bite at the cherry and were not prepared to accept the democratic vote and wishes of the majority. It is ludicrous for the judges to vote against the government and thus stop them carrying out the wishes of the people. To say MPs should have a say is akin to giving the remain voters, of which I was one, a 2nd chance because the original vote didnt suit certain people and groups.

Theatre of Trees · Dec 7, 2016

BensGrandad said:
As I read it the people of this country voted and the government under the powers given them by the sovereign were going to carry out the wishes of the majority but some that lost decided that they shouldnt without consulting their minors. They wanted another bite at the cherry and were not prepared to accept the democratic vote and wishes of the majority. It is ludicrous for the judges to vote against the government and thus stop them carrying out the wishes of the people. To say MPs should have a say is akin to giving the remain voters, of which I was one, a 2nd chance because the original vote didnt suit certain people and groups.

And another who fails to understand how the British Parliamentary system works. See quote below for what the court case ia about:

Gwylan said:
This is nothing to do with whether someone supports remain or leave, it's to do with the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament. It's establishing the principle that everyone, even the prime minister, has to act in accordance with the legal structure of the land

Norman Baker suck my lozenge · Dec 7, 2016

If there can be a more tedious bunch of inadequates out there,other than estate agents,it has to be legal types.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Large One · Dec 7, 2016

BensGrandad said:
As I read it the people of this country voted and the government under the powers given them by the sovereign were going to carry out the wishes of the majority but some that lost decided that they shouldnt without consulting their minors. They wanted another bite at the cherry and were not prepared to accept the democratic vote and wishes of the majority. It is ludicrous for the judges to vote against the government and thus stop them carrying out the wishes of the people. To say MPs should have a say is akin to giving the remain voters, of which I was one, a 2nd chance because the original vote didnt suit certain people and groups.

A bit like football, you have no idea how Parliament works.

Pretty much all of what you have said is gibberish in its purest form.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Supreme Court

Its All Too Beautiful

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Staring at the rude boys

Because of Boxing Day

Deleted member 22389

Guest

Who's Next?

Who's Next?

Who's Next?

Its All Too Beautiful

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Who's Next?

Share this page