Brexit will be a Titanic Success - Boris Johnson

doe808

prosaver wrote: »

[QUOTE=jimjames;71565490
it was made law when parliament passed the act on the referendum and said we will Respect your decision.
Didnt neeed too..
Cameron said the next day he would trigger article 50..T50


So does scotlland referendum doesnt count too.?
freedom of speech, this is the time of we can do our own research and find government stats and not listen or get brain washed by the TV media. Especially the BBC who receive grants from the EU ..conflict of interest yet again.And we are forced to pay for the licence fee or we cant have a TV
oh grow up, its not medieval times, the judges had conflict of interest ..like i said


/QUOTE]
its news to me it was advisory.
didnt say on the voting form ..yes or no... btw this is advisory..
Its shocking that the people have been fooled by all of the government MPs
,

Should you anger not be directed towards the Government then? And no it wasn't made law when parliament passed the act on the referendum.

bowlhead99

prosaver wrote: »

this is the time of we can do our own research and find government stats and not listen or get brain washed by the TV media.

Its news to me it was advisory.

Is it news to you because you didn't do your own research? The European Union Referendum Act, together with all other Acts and proposed bills on most topics under the sun, are public domain information and easily found.

Especially the BBC who receive grants from the EU ..conflict of interest yet again.And we are forced to pay for the licence fee or we cant have a TV

Whether or not it's useful to have a broadcaster with a public interest remit to help avoid commercial organisations or special-nterest groups broadcasting biased information, is probably a discussion for another day. Their coverage of the facts around the judicial review have certainly been more level-headed than the front pages of the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc.

Ahead of the referendum itself, the BBC actually did great favours for the brexit campaign by wanting to be seen impartial and on the fence.

For example, whenever they gave ten minutes of airtime to an economist who said that leaving would damage the economy, they also had to go and dig up some economist who said that it would be good for the economy, so the BBC presenter could say, there we have it, you've heard both sides, the economists can't agree if it's good or bad. But that was not really the case, in reality there were 22 economists who said it would be negative for every one that said it would be positive. Overwhelmingly the economists said it was negative.

But BBC did their best to always only put up one "we should remain" economist for the one "we should leave" economist, and cut out the other twenty plus "remain" economists because they would be accused of bias if they showed so many "experts" all at once on that one side.

In that way, some of the public would have been misled that economists were 50:50 on the subject, and may have mistakenly believed that those saying that exit was the way to short- and medium-term economic discomfort must have been part of a conspiratorial "project fear" rather than "project give people the entirely reasonable projections".

Ah well I'm off to the fireworks where we can annually commemorate the conspiracy to blow up Parliament. Have a lovely evening all.

doe808

prosaver wrote: »

brexit means
br... Britain
exit..
mean leave the EU
with brexit camp mps making the decisions
and the ex PM T50 the next day as said.
ask anyone who voted ..a bit simple.
There was no way of going back to the houses of parliament. to T50 as it was passed by parliament before referendum. or thereabouts till super judges butted in.

I said NO.
no no................ no!

Or more succinctly than I said above "man who wanted British parliamentary sovereignty angry at court ruling parliament sovereign" (c) daily mash

prosaver

you must be missing my other comments ..ok answer this btw its quote..

[

QUOTE]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6425/analysis_why_high_court_got_brexit_decision_wrong

First, while the 2015 Referendum Act did not specifically state that the referendum was binding, the purpose of the referendum was billed by all sides as the place at which the decision on Britain's membership of the European Union would be made. There would have been no point in calling a referendum if its result was not intended to be respected. The government could have hired focus groups.

The High Court missed the point here.

Second, the referendum does not contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty since it was parliament itself that passed the bill enabling the referendum to take place. Parliament transferred its power to the people so that they could make a decision on parliament's behalf. This was clearly understood at the time. The HIgh Court missed the point on this too.

Third, in invoking the briefing paper -- European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16, House of Commons Library -- the High Court refers to a paper that in one crucial respect undermines its own ruling.

This is from the section entitled, Types of Referendum:

"It [the referendum] does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

See what the High Court got wrong? The wording does not say that the result of the referendum is designed to influence parliament, it says it is designed to influence "the Government".

The reason why it says that is that it was widely understood that parliament had indeed transferred its sovereignty to the people, and that it would then be up to the government (ie. not parliament) to take the process further, and implement the will of the people.

If the government takes this argument to the Supreme Court, it has a realistic chance of winning, and putting Britain back on track for Brexit.

UPDATE: Here is another excellent point raised by the Telegraph:

"Into this constitutional quagmire the High Court unwisely strayed this week, ruling that the Government did not have the power to use the Royal Prerogative to trigger the process to leave the European Union. Yet it is also long established in legal precedent that the courts do not have the power to order Parliament to introduce and pass a Bill, which appears to be the upshot of the judges’ decision on Wednesday. This is a stand-off which the Supreme Court would do well to resolve by overturning the lower court’s ruling next month"
[/QUOTE]so in a nut shell..its up to the government not parliament .
take your time

prosaver

its getting like the us elections

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLPESWWPUJE

doe808

prosaver wrote: »

you must be missing my other comments ..ok answer this btw its quote..
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6425/analysis_why_high_court_got_brexit_decision_wrong

First, while the 2015 Referendum Act did not specifically state that the referendum was binding, the purpose of the referendum was billed by all sides as the place at which the decision on Britain's membership of the European Union would be made. There would have been no point in calling a referendum if its result was not intended to be respected. The government could have hired focus groups.

The High Court missed the point here.

Second, the referendum does not contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty since it was parliament itself that passed the bill enabling the referendum to take place. Parliament transferred its power to the people so that they could make a decision on parliament's behalf. This was clearly understood at the time. The HIgh Court missed the point on this too.

Third, in invoking the briefing paper -- European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16, House of Commons Library -- the High Court refers to a paper that in one crucial respect undermines its own ruling.

This is from the section entitled, Types of Referendum:

"It [the referendum] does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

See what the High Court got wrong? The wording does not say that the result of the referendum is designed to influence parliament, it says it is designed to influence "the Government".

The reason why it says that is that it was widely understood that parliament had indeed transferred its sovereignty to the people, and that it would then be up to the government (ie. not parliament) to take the process further, and implement the will of the people.

If the government takes this argument to the Supreme Court, it has a realistic chance of winning, and putting Britain back on track for Brexit.

UPDATE: Here is another excellent point raised by the Telegraph:

"Into this constitutional quagmire the High Court unwisely strayed this week, ruling that the Government did not have the power to use the Royal Prerogative to trigger the process to leave the European Union. Yet it is also long established in legal precedent that the courts do not have the power to order Parliament to introduce and pass a Bill, which appears to be the upshot of the judges’ decision on Wednesday. This is a stand-off which the Supreme Court would do well to resolve by overturning the lower court’s ruling next month"

so in a nut shell..its up to the government not parliament .
take your time[/QUOTE]

I have no idea who you are responding to, but you've lifted your argument from The Commentator. You expect people to place more weight on that, as against three independent high court judges (whom you probably believe biased)?!

Nah.

I'll just leave it at that.

bowlhead99

prosaver wrote: »

the referendum does not contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty since it was parliament itself that passed the bill enabling the referendum to take place. Parliament transferred its power to the people so that they could make a decision on parliament's behalf. This was clearly understood at the time. The HIgh Court missed the point on this too.

Maybe the High Court actually *read* the bill that Parliament passed, unlike you, unlike thecommentator.com, and noted that it did not "transfer power to the people", it merely sought the opinion of the people on a broad question.

in invoking the briefing paper -- European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16, House of Commons Library -- the High Court refers to a paper that in one crucial respect undermines its own ruling.

OK, let's hear it...

This is from the section entitled, Types of Referendum:

"It [the referendum] does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

OK, we're all agreed with that, we are just collecting opinions...

See what the High Court got wrong? The wording does not say that the result of the referendum is designed to influence parliament, it says it is designed to influence "the Government".

So the wording says it is designed to influence someone. Thanks for that. It is what we have been telling you a while. It is not giving 'power' to the people, it is collating opinions, which Parliament and the government (a subset of Parliament with the loudest voice) can take into account when carrying about their business.

If the government takes this argument to the Supreme Court, it has a realistic chance of winning, and putting Britain back on track for Brexit.

If the government took the 'argument' that a court had ruled that a consultative opinion-gathering process, designed to *influence* government, somehow granted the government the right to make up some rules on their own while sidestepping Parliament on what they wanted to pass or revoke and what rights they want to impose on or remove from the British public... it would be laughed out of court. It would not have any realistic chance of winning.

it is also long established in legal precedent that the courts do not have the power to order Parliament to introduce and pass a Bill

That seems to be fine. Nobody is ordering Parliament to pass a Bill. We can just carry on with our lives with no bills and no changes to the current status quo.

However, if government or brexiters would like to change the status quo, forever changing our relationship with the EU and the rights of all British subjects, then they can go and pass a Bill. That's how government has worked for hundreds of years.

take your time

I thought you wanted things to happen as soon as possible? Having an "appeal" when there are no new facts since the facts were already heard in court, is not going to expedite things, is it. It is a waste of time.

CLAPTON

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I thought you wanted things to happen as soon as possible? Having an "appeal" when there are no new facts since the facts were already heard in court, is not going to expedite things, is it. It is a waste of time.

it would seem to me, the supreme court fairly frequently over rules the lower courts : indeed one might argue that is its main function

EnglishMohican

Gadfium wrote: »

A more critical person than me might point out that the responsibility for providing the plan surely must lie with the people that wanted Brexit?

That more critical person would be wrong then. The Brexiteers were essentially a pressure group just like the no smoking lobby, the lower speed limits lobby and many others. Their role was to pressurise the Government to take us out of the EU. They were successful in getting the Government to set up a referendum and successful in persuading a majority of the people who voted to support it.

I conceed that the Brexiteers were a very high level pressure group with lots of "top people" on its side - but none of them commanded the wheels of government. Again, I conceed that Michael Gove did command the Justice Department and might have been able to formulate a plan for Justice after leaving the EU but that is fairly obvious in any case and if the order from the top was that no work was to be done on planning for the Brexit contingency then even a minister might have trouble getting such a thing generated.

It was David Cameron, on behalf of the whole Government, who had the authority to instruct the Civil Service to look into what was to happen if the Brexit option was the end point and to provide a plan for that contingency and that is what he should have done.

It would then be down to the Civil Service, (Trade, Treasury, Embassies, Home Office plus more) to apply their expertise to the problem and we could have had a plan, or far more of a plan, ready. It MIGHT have been possible to discuss that plan with the British people and have had a proper discussion about the risks of the changes involved.

If anything could persuade me to want more referendums (internet voting?) - based on facts, not soundbites so that the people have the power, it is the dishonesty and incompetence of the political class as a whole and Cameron as a prize example.

prosaver

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Maybe the High Court actually *read* the bill that Parliament passed,
However, if government or brexiters would like to change the status quo, forever changing our relationship with the EU and the rights of all British subjects, then they can go and pass a Bill. That's how government has worked for hundreds of years.
I thought you wanted things to happen as soon as possible? Having an "appeal" when there are no new facts since the facts were already heard in court, is not going to expedite things, is it. It is a waste of time.

Done some more research..its a bit long winded but does make a point.
I quote.....
European Communities Act 1972 and Royal Prerogative

As noted above, Article 50 is a one-way street that, at the eclipse of two years without a deal to the contrary, releases the United Kingdom of its Treaty obligations. If it is the Government who activate Article 50 then they would be utilising the Royal Prerogative to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union despite the fact that the European Communities Act 1972 (“ECA”) expresses Parliament’s wish for EU law to apply domestically (section 2 ECA). In other words, this Act functions as an incorporating statute, bringing the United Kingdom’s international obligations into the domestic sphere with domestic effect. Barber, Hickman, and King argue “the obvious intention of the Act is to provide for the UK’s membership of the EU and for the EU Treaties to have effect at domestic law. The purpose of triggering Article 50 would be cut across the Act and render it nugatory”.

The argument goes that because withdrawal would render the 1972 Act hollow it would cut across Parliament’s intention in enacting the ECA. Since Parliamentary intention trumps prerogative power, the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to initiate the withdrawal process. Instead, it must be Parliament that does so.

Whilst incredibly well argued, this is not an argument that I agree with. The ECA was undoubtedly enacted to give effect to the United Kingdom’s international obligations vis-!-vis the European Union at the domestic level. However, regardless of such an Act, as a matter of international law the United Kingdom would already be bound at the international level. The ECA merely transposes these international obligation into the United Kingdom’s law in accordance with the constitution’s dualist approach to the domestic effect of international law. The use of the Royal Prerogative in initiating Article 50 will not repeal or modify the ECA. That is undoubtedly for Parliament to do. All it would do is alter the Treaties at the international level to remove the United Kingdom from its international obligations. This is entirely consistent with the will of Parliament as expressed in the ECA, which is to automatically give effect to European Union law as it applies to the United Kingdom at the domestic level. However, the relevant Treaties of the European Union govern European Union law and these Treaties are enlarged or reduced in scope, from the United Kingdom’s perspective at least, by the Government’s representative(s) acting under the Royal Prerogative. Therefore, the Royal Prerogative can be used to activate the Article 50 procedure.

Barber, Hickman, and King suggest that because section 2 ECA “provides that all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions” coming from the Treaties are part of the domestic law Article 50 could not be activated by the Executive because that would cause a loss of rights provided by European Union law. The idea here is that because Parliament provided for rights to be incorporated domestically under the ECA the Executive cannot use the Royal Prerogative to frustrate that purpose by initiating the withdrawal process (and therefore take rights away from citizens). This normative argument is based on a fallacy; the ECA provides that rights “from time to time arising” under the Treaties to apply domestically. Those rights can increase in scope (as has been the general trajectory of the European Union project) but, likewise, they can be restricted. There could be a Treaty change, for example, that abolishes the European Parliament. This would, on a strict analysis, only require assent from the United Kingdom via the Royal Prerogative and not from Parliament, despite the loss of a democratic “right”.

The authors may argue that a lowering of rights is acceptable within the current framework because that works within the European Union, whereas Article 50 would result in a withdrawal, which “cuts across the whole object and purpose of the 1972 Act, which is to make the UK part of the EU”. However, this is misguided. The 1972 Act was not designed to make the UK party to the European Union; it was rather to incorporate our international commitments into the domestic sphere. One way to demonstrate this is to reverse engineer the argument; if the Royal Prerogative had not been used to join the European Union but Parliament had still passed the ECA, the United Kingdom would not joined the European Union. Barber, Hickman and King seem to revert to potential arguments along these lines and dismiss any such contention as “a very formalistic analysis”. With respect, I contend that what they consider formalism is in fact the recognition of the important distinction between international legal obligations and the domestic legislation that may give effect to such. We are party to the European Union because of the Royal Prerogative, and we will leave the European Union because of the Royal Prerogative..Ref https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/08/thomas-fairclough-article-50-and-the-royal-prerogative/