So Brexit now needs parliamentary approval?

[Ken]

It's a marker to the kind of people that have been created in the last 30 years. They don't understand the meaning of words, laws processes, education ; they don't even know how their own country works or how it came to be.

But they want it back instead of something else they don't understand.

 

 

It doesn't help when stories such as the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine by an armed mob is reported as "democracy in action". If that's what the British press now calls democracy they shouldn't be surprised if a future generation decides that's what democracy is.

[newjez]

 

It doesn't help when stories such as the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine by an armed mob is reported as "democracy in action". If that's what the British press now calls democracy they shouldn't be surprised if a future generation decides that's what democracy is.

I do remember Ukraine, and the US stance, and the press seemed rather confused as to how they should react. For a brief moment we saw things from a different perspective. Similar thing happened with Gaddafi. Similar thing when Diana died.

[VERYSTORMY]

But I thought you were in oil exploration.

 

??? Nope. I have worked the last decade as a geoscientist in mineral exploration. Before which I was a lawyer.

[newjez]

 

??? Nope. I have worked the last decade as a geoscientist in mineral exploration. Before which I was a lawyer.

Why the radical career change?

[newjez]

So, if they fail at the supreme court do you think they will take it to the European court of justice?

[VERYSTORMY]

Why the radical career change?

 

Because I loved the study of law and did a LLB and a post grad, but hated practice. I also enjoy a work that is outdoor based. Something I didn't realise at the time. Though now as I get older, I am getting to a point of wanting a more indoor life, but I suppose that is normal. But geoscience has been wonderful and I have seen, been to places and experienced things that would be impossible as a tourist.

 

I am not looking forward to my next project which is an investigation of an area near Aberdeen. All good except it will be late November/ early December and over night.

 

I may may do a legal PhD and nearly started one last year that was a mix of geoscience and law.

 

As for ECJ, no as it is not relevant. The question relates to UK constitutio and its applicTion. (Yes we have a constitution and an a mating one that many countries look at in wonder and some have tried to emulate but it isn't one that can easily be as it is based on common law. If you are interested in your constitution then I would recommend a paperback by Marston and Ward "On constitutional Law".

[Perthbum]

Amendments to what?

Are you serious ? Why are you even commenting if you do not even know what it means.

 

[h=2]How does the High Court ruling affect the Great Repeal Bill?[/h]Much depends on whether the government wins its appeal to the Supreme Court and, if not, to what extent new legislation about triggering Article 50 is delayed by questions and amendments in Parliament.

Theresa May announced the Great Repeal Bill - which would abolish the 1972 European Communities Act and transpose all relevant EU law on to the UK statute book after the UK leaves the EU - on the day she said she wanted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017. The High Court ruling that the government cannot enact Article 50 without the backing of Parliament could delay that timetable.

[newjez]

Are you serious ? Why are you even commenting if you do not even know what it means.

 

How does the High Court ruling affect the Great Repeal Bill?

 

Much depends on whether the government wins its appeal to the Supreme Court and, if not, to what extent new legislation about triggering Article 50 is delayed by questions and amendments in Parliament.

Theresa May announced the Great Repeal Bill - which would abolish the 1972 European Communities Act and transpose all relevant EU law on to the UK statute book after the UK leaves the EU - on the day she said she wanted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017. The High Court ruling that the government cannot enact Article 50 without the backing of Parliament could delay that timetable.

perthbum, very few laws get through without amendments. It's part of our democratic process. It is what you voted for, for British law to be determined by the British.

[Perthbum]

perthbum, very few laws get through without amendments. It's part of our democratic process. It is what you voted for, for British law to be determined by the British.

Good get out ....lol

[winter1]

Seriously, do you honestly think that if 48% had voted to leave the EU they would have gladly accepted the result. Farage was on record before the vote as saying that if the result was close (in favour of remain)there should be another referendum. The sad reality is that this issue has split the nation down the middle.

 

Nicola Sturgeon does not have a majority in Parliament but she is at least trying to support the will of her people (who voted overwhelmingly to remain -in case you have forgotten) which surely is fair enough.

 

Absolutely Right they would have been whinging till Kingdom come.

 

Personally there is a lot made of the 17,410,742 that voted leave but 16,141,241 voted remain of a total electorate of 46,501,241 that means that nearly 30Million didn't actively vote out I feel it should have been compulsory as it is here in Australia. Also many UK Expats nearly 1.5 million who live in the EU were excluded from the vote this could have severe impacts for them, and many are still UK taxpayers.

I am sure that many who voted remain saw it as the best option despite misgivings of the total European package. However I am also sure many who voted leave had different ideas about the form Brexit should take, some obviously were for hard Brexit whilst others still wanted to have access to the single market.

 

The British constitution includes the Judiciary who made the decision in the High Court. If the prime minister wanted to use Royal prerogative to bring in other contentious legislation then many criticising the Judges for this decision could be applauding them.

 

The attack on the judges is scurrilous they are only considering a point of law. What is wrong with Parliament debating and deciding the form of Brexit which I am still convinced that Mrs May's government has not got a clue on what they collectively want. If this leads to a general election then many who didn't vote in the referendum may vote and could in theory overturn the referendum or not but we may have a much clearer outcome.

[newjez]

 

Good get out ....lol

it is the truth mate. Surely you studied politics at school?

[newjez]

So it begins. We have a choice between the single market, or no brexit and an election. God knows what the election will prove unless labour does a Bob hawke. Unless attached to the election is a referendum asking whether we want to be members of the single market? What lies could they tell us about that to help us make a choice? Personally, I think we are setting the seeds for a stock market crash. So much uncertainty and instability is not a good thing.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-block-article-50-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access-brexit-a7400266.html

[Ferrets]

Seeing May's response I suspect that the reality is she doesn't want the scrutiny of parliament because there is currently no plan.

 

Am putting some money on an early election - it's gonna be a hard brexit or no brexit now I reckon.

 

Interesting to see on Money Mail the Brexiteer hedge fund manager who is now betting on recession. Horrible feeling that the biggest winners will be the 1% whatever the outcome.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Ferrets

[newjez]

If you want to read an antithesis of the sun, give this a read. The comments section is outstanding. Made me laugh anyways.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elitist-gina-millers-daft-wrexit-9204861

[Perthbum]

If you want to read an antithesis of the sun, give this a read. The comments section is outstanding. Made me laugh anyways.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elitist-gina-millers-daft-wrexit-9204861

 

 

 

 

Anyone who believed filthy rich hedge funder Gina Miller when she said this week’s court action to give Parliament a vote on the triggering of Article 50 wasn’t about politics but “procedure and process” needs their head looking at.

This was about a bunch of loaded, powerful, well-connected Remainers using the courts to frustrate the will of the British people and block Brexit .

They didn’t get their way on June 23 so they’re determined to get it now – at the cost of democracy.

Miller is the woman who condescendingly said she felt “physically sick” when she heard that 17.4million people had voted to leave the EU.

She was devastated because (I paraphrase) she thought Leavers were stupid little people who’d been “tricked and fooled” and simply hadn’t *understood what would happen if we left the EU.

[newjez]

Anyone who believed filthy rich hedge funder Gina Miller when she said this week’s court action to give Parliament a vote on the triggering of Article 50 wasn’t about politics but “procedure and process” needs their head looking at.

This was about a bunch of loaded, powerful, well-connected Remainers using the courts to frustrate the will of the British people and block Brexit .

They didn’t get their way on June 23 so they’re determined to get it now – at the cost of democracy.

Miller is the woman who condescendingly said she felt “physically sick” when she heard that 17.4million people had voted to leave the EU.

She was devastated because (I paraphrase) she thought Leavers were stupid little people who’d been “tricked and fooled” and simply hadn’t *understood what would happen if we left the EU.

You should write for the mirror!

[Ken]

Anyone who believed filthy rich hedge funder Gina Miller when she said this week’s court action to give Parliament a vote on the triggering of Article 50 wasn’t about politics but “procedure and process” needs their head looking at.

This was about a bunch of loaded, powerful, well-connected Remainers using the courts to frustrate the will of the British people and block Brexit .

They didn’t get their way on June 23 so they’re determined to get it now – at the cost of democracy.

Miller is the woman who condescendingly said she felt “physically sick” when she heard that 17.4million people had voted to leave the EU.

She was devastated because (I paraphrase) she thought Leavers were stupid little people who’d been “tricked and fooled” and simply hadn’t *understood what would happen if we left the EU.

 

Yes, lets preserve democracy by taking away all the powers that a democratically elected parliament has to enact legislation and instead have everything done by Royal Prerogative.

[Que Sera Sera]

it is the truth mate. Surely you studied politics at school?

I certainly was never taught politics in school in the UK, nor were my eldest children. I know they are taught it here.

[VERYSTORMY]

Yes, lets preserve democracy by taking away all the powers that a democratically elected parliament has to enact legislation and instead have everything done by Royal Prerogative.

 

The last time I looked, article 50 was in the Lisbon treaty and treaties are the realm of RP. May is not attempting legislative change. There will need to be legislative change to amend, repeal and insert a whole raft of legislation, that will be the role of parliament. A article 50 trigger is purely a treaty excersice

[newjez]

 

I certainly was never taught politics in school in the UK, nor were my eldest children. I know they are taught it here.

I went to school in Australia.

[newjez]

 

The last time I looked, article 50 was in the Lisbon treaty and treaties are the realm of RP. May is not attempting legislative change. There will need to be legislative change to amend, repeal and insert a whole raft of legislation, that will be the role of parliament. A article 50 trigger is purely a treaty excersice

so the Lisbon treaty wasn't passed by the commons and lords? It was passed by RP? Being a treaty and all, in the realm of RP?

[Graemsay]

I'm going to take issue with this whole "will of the people" thing, because it's making it out as though there's a massive majority in favour of Brexit. There isn't.

 

Prior to the referendum opinion was roughly split three ways: Just over a third wanted to remain, just under a third wanted to leave, and the rest were undecided. And as we all know, leave won by a small amount. Boris himself concluded, "And yet we who agreed with this majority verdict must accept that it was not entirely overwhelming."

 

Leave supporters frequently claim that if the referendum was re-run, they'd still win, but with a greater majority. This isn't supported by the polls. In fact, this chart, from the LSE's Brexit blog, shows how opinion has shifted since the vote.

 

 

In fact, there is evidence that:

 

 

• Opinion has shifted against Brexit since the referendum.
  
• Non-voters favoured remain over leave.
  

 

I suspect that a lot of the leaders of the Leave camp know the above, hence there's been a strong desire not to have a second ballot or election prior to the UK exiting the EU.

 

I don't know what the solution is, and think it's a political Kobayashi Maru scenario. The referendum was won on a 52% vote for Brexit, and it's likely that opinion now is at a similar level against. That suggests the country is divided down the middle, rather than there being a consensus, and I think that's what Theresa May should be looking for. Perhaps we stay and attempt reform of the EU, perhaps we leave, or maybe there's a third path (e.g. EFTA membership) that we take instead.

[Graemsay]

Also, take a look at this blog post.

 

Enough of this "Will of the People" nonsense

[amibovered]

It doesn't matter who wanted what, the referendum was clear cut, more people voted out than in.

Edited November 6, 2016 by amibovered

[Fisher1]

It doesn't matter who wanted what, the referendum was clear cut, more people voted out than in.[/quote

 

The referendum was clear cut and more people did vote out than in.

 

However, it could be argued that the format of the referendum voting paper was anything but clear cut, since there was no obvious text explaining the plan for withdrawal should that be the decision of the majority.

 

So now we need to know what that plan is. We have (rather naively) bought into something without first checking the details of the deal. A bit like buying a car on credit without checking the interest rates.

 

Luckily, this period prior to actioning article 50 can be likened to a cooling off period. We can still check what will be involved and make sure we don't agree to anything that is bad for us. Since it would be unweildy and expensive to organise another referendum asking our views on every single point in any prospective deal, we can use parliament - our elected representatives that is - to ... Er ... Represent us.

 

This strikes me as a far better prospect than relying on Teresa May free reign to organise whatever she likes with the aid of a small group of Tory MPs and without anyone else having any say at all. She should be feeling relieved right now, to know the burden will be shared.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Fisher1