Post-Brexit Thread

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

A Tory MP, Stephen Philips, has resigned his seat 'with immediate effect' over the Government's policy of not involving Parliament in Brexit:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/s...00768111923200

Yet another by-election.

So he hasn't heard of the court case result then?

Pehaps he's another Cameron. The best way to represent constituents is to put their case forward in Parliament, this can happen at PM's question time or via an early day motion.

What gauls me is that the case agaist the Government was brought by a private individual and decided by a (rightly) independant judiciary. MP's already had the necessary powers to force a debate if they so wished.

It stinks of a set-up.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So he hasn't heard of the court case result then?

Pehaps he's another Cameron. The best way to represent constituents is to put their case forward in Parliament, this can happen at PM's question time or via an early day motion.

What gauls me is that the case agaist the Government was brought by a private individual and decided by a (rightly) independant judiciary. MP's already had the necessary powers to force a debate if they so wished.

It stinks of a set-up.

And the private individual is foreign and a woman

bet some people's heads exploded

[Kursk]

Remainers will clutch at straws as sure as Mark Carney will make inaccurate predictions .

Why the long face Mark; got it wrong again did we?

[Jimmy-J]

Are the bookies giving odds on the final outcome of Brexit? Because I'd bet we're staying right where we are.

Originally Posted by Damien

When did 'unelected' judges become a thing anyway? They're always unelected.

It's a thing because they are dictating the governments business and that should never be the case whatsoever.

Iain Duncan Smith, and I have to be honest, I really don't like this guy for how he handled the benefit system for disabled persons when he was Secretary of State of DWP, but I did agree totally with what he said this morning on the news that the issue here with the ruling is, Sovereignty . Parliament voted overwhelmingly, 6 to 1 to hand the Sovereignty back to the people to decide via a referendum, that decision was made and the result was a Leave regardless if it was advisory, the Sovereignty existed with the people.

This business of Parliament discussing how we leave is wrong. Leave means leave, no back room deals, no silly, we'll partly leave. The people voted to leave, no buts, so this has no merit going to Parliament at all.

Originally Posted by Mick

It's a thing because they are dictating the governments business and that should never be the case whatsoever.

It should be the case. The Government is accountable to the law just as we all are.

Iain Duncan Smith, and I have to be honest, I really don't like this guy for how he handled the benefit system for disabled persons when he was Secretary of State of DWP, but I did agree totally with what he said this morning on the news that the issue here with the ruling is, Sovereignty . Parliament voted overwhelmingly, 6 to 1 to hand the Sovereignty back to the people to decide via a referendum, that decision was made and the result was a Leave regardless if it was advisory, the Sovereignty existed with the people.

Judges can only go on law and the legal arguments made by those in court. What the public thinks is irrelevant. Ian Duncan Smith, ironically since he called Keir Starmer a 2nd rate lawyer, doesn't seem to know that even the Government didn't think the referendum was a valid legal argument. Instead it centered around the technicalities of Parliamentary process.

Equally 'handing sovereignty back to the people' isn't a thing. It is Parliament which has the constitutional authority to implement and repel legislation. At no point have Parliament relinquished that power to 'the people' who instead elect representatives to Parliament.

To be honest I am not sure a referendum in the UK could ever be truly binding. Maybe if Parliament passed a bill that automatically became legal upon the passing of a vote. Although even then, legally, there would be nothing stopping Parliament from repealing that too.

Parliament is the authority there.

Originally Posted by Mick

It's a thing because they are dictating the governments business and that should never be the case whatsoever.

Iain Duncan Smith, and I have to be honest, I really don't like this guy for how he handled the benefit system for disabled persons when he was Secretary of State of DWP, but I did agree totally with what he said this morning on the news that the issue here with the ruling is, Sovereignty . Parliament voted overwhelmingly, 6 to 1 to hand the Sovereignty back to the people to decide via a referendum, that decision was made and the result was a Leave regardless if it was advisory, the Sovereignty existed with the people.

This business of Parliament discussing how we leave is wrong. Leave means leave, no back room deals, no silly, we'll partly leave. The people voted to leave, no buts, so this has no merit going to Parliament at all.

The act of Parliament to grant a referendum is a completely separate issue to the act of parliament needed to remove us from the EU .Only Parliament can make or repeal laws and the sole purpose of A50 is to start a process that will ultimately repeal the act of Parliament keeping us in the EU .The government does not have the authority to repeal laws and the judges are not "dictating the governments business" ,the government are subject to the laws just as much as everyone else

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by martyh

Only Parliament can make or repeal laws

I wish they'd had that attitude whilst the EU have been handing us laws for the last 20 years

[TheDaddy]

They should of called the referendum the EU opinion poll

http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/...-opinion-poll/

Originally Posted by Damien

It should be the case. The Government is accountable to the law just as we all are.

I disagree. So, let's say I have a disagreement with something that pops up in the Chancellors budget Statement, which is due real soon, it has not been debated through parliament, because at the end of the day, the party which commands the most seats is the party which has authority and can dictate fiscal policy. Now are you saying, I or anyone else who disagrees with what is in it, can raise a legal challenge in the Court ? Do you see how stupid this seems ?

Originally Posted by Damien

Equally 'handing sovereignty back to the people' isn't a thing. It is Parliament which has the constitutional authority to implement and repel legislation. At no point have Parliament relinquished that power to 'the people' who instead elect representatives to Parliament.

You can't say it is not a thing when you have an MP, which says different Damien.

And Yes they did hand the power to the people Damien, it has no business going through Parliament over and over again when it already went through Parliament when MPs voted 6 to 1 to hand the sovereignty back to the people. It's like people earlier in this thread, have raised the argument about the Scottish Referendum, if it had been a Yes vote, it would have no business going through Parliament - this is the same thing. It does not need to go through Parliament again.

A Leave vote is a leave vote. The people who voted to leave want out completely. This is what we voted for not, a partial leave, not a 60% remain in the EU, We want out of that corrupted piece of Euro trash.

Originally Posted by Mick

I disagree. So, let's say I have a disagreement with something that pops up in the Chancellors budget Statement, which is due real soon, it has not been debated through parliament, because at the end of the day, the party which commands the most seats is the party which has authority and can dictate fiscal policy. Now are you saying, I or anyone else who disagrees with what is in it, can raise a legal challenge in the Court ? Do you see how stupid this seems ?

No. I am not saying that. Parliament passing a budget is not remotely comparable to the Government acting without Parliament. The Government certainty cannot pass a budget without Parliamentary approval.

You can't say it is not a thing when you have an MP, which says different Damien.

Yes Parliament is the where sovereign power is located. Hence why it's not undemocratic for them to act on it.

And Yes they did hand the power to the people Damien, it has no business going through Parliament over and over again when it already went through Parliament when MPs voted 6 to 1 to hand the sovereignty back to the people. It's like people earlier in this thread, have raised the argument about the Scottish Referendum, if it had been a Yes vote, it would have no business going through Parliament - this is the same thing. It does not need to go through Parliament again.

No it didn't and the Scottish Referendum would more than likely have been subject to a parliamentary vote as well.

The referendum doesn't have any legal/constitutional power to the Government to enact or repeal legislation. We're talking about legal powers here not moral ones.

There is no legal means in the UK for Parliament to make itself subordinate to anyone or anything. As an institution, it is sovereign, which means the only thing it cannot do is pass any law that prevents it exercising its own will or that of a successor (each parliament lasting no more than five years, and being succeeded by another one after a general election).

The nearest parliament could have got to making the outcome of the referendum legally binding would have been to word the referendum act so as to explicitly mandate, via primary legislation, what the government was to do in the event of a leave or a remain vote. In that case, parliament would have had no role to play unless it chose to repeal that legislation.

The referendum act as passed did not have that effect, and so quite regardless of what the government may have intended, or what it printed on its leaflets, or how many MPs voted for it, the referendum is not binding. It is not possible for it to be so under our constitutional settlement. It took a civil war to establish that and it would take another one to undo it.

The argument in court was over whether the government was impinging on that parliamentary sovereignty by invoking Article 50 without parliament's consent. Parliament's consent is needed, the court ruled, because invoking Article 50 will inevitably lead to a piece of primary legislation being undone (the European Communities Act 1972). The government is not allowed to undo acts of Parliament. Only Parliament can do that (quite right too).

The only room the government has to argue their appeal is either to try to persuade the Supreme Court that Article 50 sets in motion a process that will stop a fraction short of annulling ECA 1972, or that us being ejected from the EU at the end of 2 years somehow doesn't have any ramifications for the ECA 1972 still being in force.

It's hard to see how they're going to pull that off.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is no legal means in the UK for Parliament to make itself subordinate to anyone or anything. As an institution, it is sovereign, which means the only thing it cannot do is pass any law that prevents it exercising its own will or that of a successor (each parliament lasting no more than five years, and being succeeded by another one after a general election).

The nearest parliament could have got to making the outcome of the referendum legally binding would have been to word the referendum act so as to explicitly mandate, via primary legislation, what the government was to do in the event of a leave or a remain vote. In that case, parliament would have had no role to play unless it chose to repeal that legislation.

The referendum act as passed did not have that effect, and so quite regardless of what the government may have intended, or what it printed on its leaflets, or how many MPs voted for it, the referendum is not binding. It is not possible for it to be so under our constitutional settlement. It took a civil war to establish that and it would take another one to undo it.

The argument in court was over whether the government was impinging on that parliamentary sovereignty by invoking Article 50 without parliament's consent. Parliament's consent is needed, the court ruled, because invoking Article 50 will inevitably lead to a piece of primary legislation being undone (the European Communities Act 1972). The government is not allowed to undo acts of Parliament. Only Parliament can do that (quite right too).

The only room the government has to argue their appeal is either to try to persuade the Supreme Court that Article 50 sets in motion a process that will stop a fraction short of annulling ECA 1972, or that us being ejected from the EU at the end of 2 years somehow doesn't have any ramifications for the ECA 1972 still being in force.

It's hard to see how they're going to pull that off.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought that, we fought a bloody civil war albeit 400+ years ago so that parliament was sovereign, not the government, monarch or any other usurper

It's amazing and quite disturbing how many people do not know the difference between the government and Parliament and what powers each holds .I was watching the news earlier and people in the street where saying how wrong it was that Parliament could overrule the government and the will of the people .That is quite simply not what has happened and quite honestly if supposed educated people think like that then maybe we should stay in the EU because we are not capable of ruling ourselves

Originally Posted by martyh

It's amazing and quite disturbing how many people do not know the difference between the government and Parliament and what powers each holds .I was watching the news earlier and people in the street where saying how wrong it was that Parliament could overrule the government and the will of the people .That is quite simply not what has happened and quite honestly if supposed educated people think like that then maybe we should stay in the EU because we are not capable of ruling ourselves

A lot of the newspapers are going down that line as well! They also seem to think judges should enact 'the will of the people'...