Supreme Court

ROSM · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
So would you say that Parliament should be able to overturn the result of the Referendum?

It was an advisory referendum

I'm sure parliament will do what's right for the country - is the knowledge that they will be subject to public vote at the latest in 2020

Murray 17 · Dec 7, 2016

nicko31 said:
It might suit for point of view today to force through Brexit without parliament, but next week the government might want to force through something you don't like and then would you br happy?

The law is the law

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.

Murray 17 · Dec 7, 2016

ROSM said:
It was an advisory referendum

I'm sure parliament will do what's right for the country - is the knowledge that they will be subject to public vote at the latest in 2020

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.

LlcoolJ · 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 isn't.

LlcoolJ · 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.

Yes it would. Farage said he wouldn't accept a win for Remain if it was a small majority. You really think he wouldn't have pointed out that the referendum was advisory while campaigning for another one?

Murray 17 · Dec 7, 2016

I'll say again, to the Remainers, why does it matter who triggers the Article?

To me, and 17.4 million others, it's because there is a chance of derailing or influencing the outcome.

halbpro · 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.

I believe one of the people who funded the original case was actually in favour of Leave, and voted as such.

Additionally, you say it's not going to happen, but it's all about setting precedent. Once a legal precedent is set then it's established that those powers can be used in such a way, subverting Parliament's supremacy and the will of the people. That's not a good thing in my opinion.

Hotchilidog · 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.

No it was in the in Referendum Act itself.

Murray 17 · Dec 7, 2016

Hotchilidog said:
No it was in the in Referendum Act itself.

You know my point though. It's the small print that is being grasped at by the people who lost the Referendum.

highflyer · 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.

It's about how our parliamentary democracy works. Dull as it may be it is fundamentally important. In principle yes, parliament should be able to over rule the referendum, which was only advisory. In practice of course, barring a major change, they won't because too many MPs would lose their jobs as a result, but it IS their job to scrutinize and hold government to account on the terms of our exit, and they should be provided with the opportunity to do so.

If you want to see an example of deliberately muddled thinking see IDS in the Mail today. I assume it is deliberate anyway. The alternative is that he is genuinely very stupid because even I can spot the mistakes.

Murray 17 · Dec 7, 2016

What I don't understand is that, once Article 50 has been triggered, there is no going back. So if we don't get the deal we want, no amount of cross-party influence or Parliamentary debate will make a jot of difference.

Thunder Bolt · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
You know my point though. It's the small print that is being grasped at by the people who lost the Referendum.

No, it isn't. When we joined in the 70s, there was a referendum which was followed by an act of parliament to join. It works in reverse to leave. It's our constitution.
Why are you so afraid that parliament will vote against leaving? The Labour party have already said they won't oppose it.

Mellotron · Dec 7, 2016

The insane levels of irony in the Leave campaign doing EVERYTHING they can to stop democracy at the moment, and constantly pissing and moaning about it.

Blue Valkyrie · Dec 7, 2016

Mellotron said:
The insane levels of irony in the Leave campaign doing EVERYTHING they can to stop democracy at the moment, and constantly pissing and moaning about it.

"Leavemoaners"

Thunder Bolt · Dec 7, 2016

duplicate

Gwylan · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
It's the small print that is being grasped at by the people who lost the Referendum.

Er ....

halbpro said:
I believe one of the people who funded the original case was actually in favour of Leave, and voted as such.

nicko31 · Dec 7, 2016

LlcoolJ said:
Yes it would. Farage said he wouldn't accept a win for Remain if it was a small majority. You really think he wouldn't have pointed out that the referendum was advisory while campaigning for another one?

Farage makes it up as he goes, one of the biggest hyprocites of our time. Now after getting his country back he wants to ignore its law

whitelion · Dec 7, 2016

Thunder Bolt said:
No, it isn't. When we joined in the 70s, there was a referendum which was followed by an act of parliament to join. It works in reverse to leave. It's our constitution.
Why are you so afraid that parliament will vote against leaving? The Labour party have already said they won't oppose it.

The 1975 referendum was about remaining not joining as we'd already joined.

Thunder Bolt · Dec 7, 2016

whitelion said:
The 1975 referendum was about remaining not joining as we'd already joined.

Yes, sorry we joined in 1973.

Mellotron · Dec 7, 2016

Murray 17 said:
What I don't understand is that, once Article 50 has been triggered, there is no going back. So if we don't get the deal we want, no amount of cross-party influence or Parliamentary debate will make a jot of difference.

We're still a long, long, long way from Article 50 being triggered, if it even does get triggered at all.

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

Supreme Court

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Mama said knock you out.

Mama said knock you out.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

I've asked for soup

Not seen such Bravery!

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Silly old bat

I've asked for soup

Share this page