Meanwhile...... at the High Court....

Just read the full judgement again. I can see no avenue for the government to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court, and I confidently expect them to withdraw their appeal before 7 December. What the MP's can do, ought to do, or will do remains to be seen, but interesting times ahead!

 

It's no good reading the judgment on it's own though , you have to know the European Communities Act 1972 inside out before forming an opinion on the merits of the case .

 

Re: Anybody would think that

todays court ruling had overturned the Brexit decision the way people are reacting.

The decision taken in June was to leave the EU.

But where are we leaving for? Hmm!

 

Re: Anybody would think that

What confuses me is what the problem is. One of the arguments used for Brexit was to give power back to parliament. So why are people worried when that's exactly what happens?

 

Why don't the Labour party recognise that the Tory party won the election and just go away?

 

Re: Anybody would think that

Yeah but not to give parliament the power to bugger up a brexit. Which is what this is all about.

Corking. Parliament votes overwhelmingly for a vote to let the people decide.

We did.

What's their problem?

If we need a formal vote in parliament to usher brexit through then get on with it. Let the MPs vote overwhelmingly for it like they did for the country to decide.

But they won't allow it to be so simple.

 

The judgement cites relevant parts of the 1972 Act, as well as subsequent statute and case law developments. The present case is about who has the right to negative the 1972 Act, whatever it contains. The key point really is that the 1972 Act contains no provisions enabling it to be repealed other than by a further act of parliament. As triggering Article 50 would have the effect of nullifying the 1972 Act, the government can't do it.

 

Re: Anybody would think that

I guess then we didn't really want our 'parliament to be sovreign'. Don't get me wrong I think we should move forwards with leaving the EU. At the same time we elect politicians ( and pay them) in part to make decisions to vote on acts. It's their job. We can't remove this part of the job because they might vote the wrong way or next time there's an act about Hula Hoops the Hula Hoop Association of the U.K. worred MPs might vote the wrong way might not want them to vote on that law and so it goes on.

 

Re: Anybody would think that

There are two problems with that. Firstly MPs were overwhelming in favour of Remain. Secondly, MPs have a duty to do what is best for their constituents, so in many cases they could argue that what is best for their constituents is not what they wanted (either way) - and the vote was close enough that they could well be out of a job at the next election whichever way they vote.

In fact, I could see a concerted campaign to remove the leading Brexit MPs at the next election by putting strong Pro-EU candidates against them.

 

Re: Anybody would think that

There are more than those two problems.

And as for MPs having a duty to do what is best for their constituents, was it best for their constituents for MPs to vote for a referendum which has led to this situation arising? The MPs brought it on themselves.

So they should be stuck with voting in parliament to get on with the process of leaving, without delay.

 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml

 

Must say, that single A4 sheet of response from four partisan lawyers is hardly convincing when set aside the 32-page closely reasoned judgement of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and a Lord Justice of Appeal. One example suffices to show the poverty of their reasoning:

This argument is illogical and does not hold water. There are many acts which the government can carry out on the international plane under the European treaties which have the effect of altering UK domestic law, and in doing so either confer rights on people or deprive them of rights. Whenever the UK representative on the Council of Ministers joins in passing into law a directly applicable EU Regulation then the Crown in using the prerogative power to alter internal UK law without that alteration of the law going through Parliament. This is simply a consequence of the direct effect machinery of the 1972 Act.

They seem to miss the fact that that statement only holds true because Parliament legislated for it to be so under the 1972 Act. Equally, Parliament, and only Parliament could take away the direct application of those treaty provisions which it has authorised the government to agree.

I remain convinced that the Supreme Court appeal won't actually happen, because the High Court judgement has totally exposed the inadequacy of the government's legal argument. Only my opinion, mind!

 

I just posted it for the purposes of debate that's all.

 

I can't speyk!

http://theconversation.com/enemies-...stitution-over-high-court-brexit-ruling-68241

 

So the 3-4 biggest pro-Brexit newspapers (and a load of MPs) have just insulted 3 of the most senior judges in the land. I hope that the judges and their colleagues remember this witch hunt the next time the editors, owners or journalists responsible are in court.

Had a skim through the Daily Mail comments sections earlier, and at this rate most of the strong pro-Brexit voters will have self-combusted by Christmas and we can just roll the clocks back and start 2016 again.

 

Wasn't going to post anything more on this thread but Jeez!!! That headline sums up the general level of journalism nowadays (with a few exceptions), or at least the 'Free Press' This can be defined as 'Free to print the proprietor or owners prejudices so long as they can legally get away with it'.

I still think Brexit must go ahead, but Parliament not Cabinet MUST approve the triggering of the exit process. The Lords in this case are more in touch than the Government on this - much as it pains me to say it.

 

its the remainers that will self combust if owt,there was a pillock on jeremy vine show this aft harping on about how 'only' 17 million voted to leave and why should the rest of the country suffer.
if the boot was on the other foot and it was someone like farage spouting sour grapes had the vote gone the other way,i can only imagine the response from our ,shall we say'more educated' remainers,no doubt fascism would be to blame.

also,remainers,please stop blaming tabloids for the vote not going the way you wanted,the majority of people in this country dont even look at a newspaper,the propaganda was rife on both sides of the argument,with 'big business' and the majority of westminster choosing to remain,trouble is a majority of the voters dint trust either.

 

Whereas i couldnt give a *****. Article 50 wont need to be triggered as i dont think the Eu as it stands has much of a future.

 

17 million voted to leave, but 16 million voted to stay and 13 million didn't vote at all. So while 17M voted to leave, 29M didn't. And lets not talk about the 1.5M ex-pats in the EU who didn't get a vote, or the 2.2M from the EU in the UK who didn't get a vote, or the ~2M between 16 and 18 who didn't get a vote. Many of whom would have voted to Remain.

According to the latest circulation figures, the four leading Pro-Brexit tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express, Star) combined sold on average 4.26Million copies daily. With an average readership per copy of 2.5 that gives somewhere in the region of 10-11 million people reading a pro-brexit paper *every day*. Many of them will read the paper every day, but a lot will read maybe 1-2 a week boosting the total coverage further.

Against that, you have 1.1M pro-EU (Mirror and i) with about 2.6 Million readers. But the views of the tabloid owners and writers have nothing to do with it...