UK government suffers Brexit court blow

StevieJ

Moto2 wrote: »

I reckon May will drop the appeal in an attempt to limit the damage and focus on doing the bare minimum in a bill to get it through.

I think she wants a snap election, so she won't be bending over backwards to get it through parliament.

TrickyTree83

StevieJ wrote: »

Just made a couple of amendemnts, to reflect how I see it

& @mayonnaise, @wotsthat, @Herzlos

Examine the evidence.

Conservative government is put in power with a majority on the back of a manifesto that promises a referendum on EU membership.

EU referendum act is passed in parliament, with a vote ratio of 6 to 1.

So MP's endorsed asking the question to the general public.

Referendum is held, the result is to Leave the EU.

This high court judgement that parliament should rubber stamp the result is just that, it really ought to be just going through the motions since it was parliament themselves that asked the question to the general public. They agreed with the wording, they agreed with all of the EU referendum act 2015.

Are some of you really suggesting that parliament should ignore/reverse the outcome of a vote that they brought forward to the public because they (and you?) didn't like the answer? And that somehow expecting them to uphold the result of a vote that they brought to the public is not democratic?

Can you explain why you think this? Irrespective of whether you think leaving the EU is right or wrong, why is it OK in your eyes for parliament to ignore/reverse the EU referendum result?

prosaver

Like i said b4..

The one where mp voted and passed, that we could have a referendum and our decision was final..
nothing to do with all the ex/remaining MPs , Clegg .milliband and co.
It should be up to the brexit MPs, thats who won..
Seems a bit silly asking the remainers if they will let us T50..
Come on?..


Anyway didnt one of those judges have a "conflict of interest " so he shouldn't of been on the panel and the other was tony blair mate..
So the only one who was ok was the fencer ,


ha ha what a motley crew.
Funny how they made there mind up at tea time, i bet thet were starving

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Examine the evidence.

Conservative government is put in power with a majority on the back of a manifesto that promises a referendum on EU membership.

EU referendum act is passed in parliament, with a vote ratio of 6 to 1.

So MP's endorsed asking the question to the general public.

Referendum is held, the result is to Leave the EU.

This high court judgement that parliament should rubber stamp the result is just that, it really ought to be just going through the motions since it was parliament themselves that asked the question to the general public. They agreed with the wording, they agreed with all of the EU referendum act 2015.

Are some of you really suggesting that parliament should ignore/reverse the outcome of a vote that they brought forward to the public because they (and you?) didn't like the answer? And that somehow expecting them to uphold the result of a vote that they brought to the public is not democratic?

Can you explain why you think this? Irrespective of whether you think leaving the EU is right or wrong, why is it OK in your eyes for parliament to ignore/reverse the EU referendum result?

Was the referendum result binding on parliament or advisory? Can parliament be bound by the results of a referendum?

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Was the referendum result binding on parliament or advisory? Can parliament be bound by the results of a referendum?

What was the point in asking the general public if you're only going to ignore them if you dislike the answer?

You know very well that binding or not, and you're well aware most know the answer to that, it should be upheld.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Was the referendum result binding on parliament or advisory? Can parliament be bound by the results of a referendum?

the legal situation is that parliament is sovereign (at least on UK issues) the referendum can't be binding.
the issue is that parliament voted 6:1 in favour of holding the referendum; the supporting information said the result would be honoured.

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What was the point in asking the general public if you're only going to ignore them if you dislike the answer?

You know very well that binding or not, and you're well aware most know the answer to that, it should be upheld.

I'm not so sure as you. Haven't referendums been held elsewhere and the conclusion has ultimately not been followed?

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

the legal situation is that parliament is sovereign (at least on UK issues) the referendum can't be binding.
the issue is that parliament voted 6:1 in favour of holding the referendum; the supporting information said the result would be honoured.

Thanks for the clarification. We'll see what the lawyers make of it.

[Deleted User]

Moby wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. We'll see what the lawyers make of it.

Or Make OUT of it perhaps?

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

I'm not so sure as you. Haven't referendums been held elsewhere and the conclusion has ultimately not been followed?

Recently I can only think of Hungary but they have laws that state if the turnout is less than <a percentage> then the referendum is invalid.

Perhaps an example of that might be Ireland where the EU made them vote until they got the result they wanted.

Greece where their referenda were ignored.

Do you want to live in a country where you're ignored? I don't.

I would hope that our MP's stick to democratic principle and uphold the result of a vote they brought into being.