No Brexit eventually?!

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

As it stands after that Court judgment, the House of Commons and House of Lords have to decide to vote through Brexit as their approval is still not in legislation (as the referendum was advisory). Article 50 (the start of Brexit) can't be triggered until they do.

Hey very nice misquote and response. MPs don't have to do that at all. What you've done is to summarise what MPs will do before the discussions have even begun. But there's a lot of talking up of the court decision at this time.

Lastly look up "Parliamentary Democracy">

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

Hey very nice misquote and response. MPs don't have to do that at all. What you've done is to summarise what MPs will do before the discussions have even begun. But there's a lot of talking up of the court decision at this time.

Lastly look up "Parliamentary Democracy">

Kindly explain how else Article 50 can be triggered? The Government can't do it on their own (according to the High Court).

prosaver

teddysmum wrote: »

One does wonder whether the three judges were actually impartial, as they are supposed to be. All three are remainers and one has vested (business) interest in not leaving.


Apparently (before the shaming of Gove) these three actually booed him over supporting Brexit.

Conflict of interest?
Btw i think theres 2 many brexit threads .. im like a cat on a hot tin roof. Can the mod put them as one thread pleeze:beer:

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

Kindly explain how else Article 50 can be triggered? The Government can't do it on their own (according to the High Court).

The court ruled that Parliament (MPs) must have a say in triggering Brexit. The discussions haven't started yet, no proposals, no amendments, not really anything at all. Basically, we can't say that MPs will do anything at all and certainly cannot say that the government and Brexit will be challenged. It's all in the future.

Biggles

colsten wrote: »

Which is exactly what will be happening now, in early December. Even more British court applying British law, serving justice to British people. Nobody demanding democracy can seriously be unhappy about that.

Absolutely. There's nobody more democratic than a High Court judge.

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

The court ruled that Parliament (MPs) must have a say in triggering Brexit. The discussions haven't started yet, no proposals, no amendments, not really anything at all. Basically, we can't say that MPs will do anything at all and certainly cannot say that the government and Brexit will be challenged. It's all in the future.

Article 50 triggers Brexit. So the Court ruled that Parliament has to approve the triggering of Article 50 in the first instance. No discussions can start until Article 50 has been triggered, so no discussions can start until Parliament has given the Government the green light to trigger Article 50.

The Government don't need any proposals on what future negotiation deal they intend to get. All they need first is the go ahead from Parliament to get going and trigger Article 50. That's separate to the subsequent deal.

colsten

teddysmum wrote: »

One does wonder whether the three judges were actually impartial, as they are supposed to be. All three are remainers and one has vested (business) interest in not leaving.


Apparently (before the shaming of Gove) these three actually booed him over supporting Brexit.

You should find some lawyers who will help you launch a law suit against those three judges if you have evidence that they broke the law in a court of law, in the presence of the world's media.

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

Article 50 triggers Brexit. So the Court ruled that Parliament has to approve the triggering of Article 50 in the first instance. No discussions can start until Article 50 has been triggered, so no discussions can start until Parliament has given the Government the green light to trigger Article 50.

The Government don't need any proposals on what future negotiation deal they intend to get. All they need first is the go ahead from Parliament to get going and trigger Article 50. That's separate to the subsequent deal.

You're posting much the same as I posted.

But again you are looking into the future: What if Parliament don't give the government the green light to trigger Article 50? And am I to assume that if Parliament don't give the green light they have done that, or rather not done that, without discussion?

According to you, they do it and argue about it later!

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

You're posting much the same as I posted.

But again you are looking into the future: What if Parliament don't give the government the green light to trigger Article 50? And am I to assume that if Parliament don't give the green light they have done that, or rather not done that, without discussion?

According to you, they do it and argue about it later!

They can debate and argue about Brexit in general all they like as they do with the issues surrounding any Bill that goes through Parliament. But ultimately they'll have to vote on what's on the face of the Bill. If the Bill is a simple Article 50 Bill that basically says the Government will trigger Article 50 after it is passed, if all attempted amendments to the Bill (and they would obviously be numerous) which attempt to place caveats on the triggering of Article 50, are voted down then in the end MPs would be faced with voting to trigger Article 50 or not. Any MP that votes against such a Bill would be voting against the will of a majority of the people who voted expressed through the advisory referendum.

System

I'm actually quite enjoying the farce so far :T

Looking forward to the various 'remoaners' groups, the Scottish Government and various NI interests being as disruptive as possible - UKIP imploding is icing on the cake.

colsten wrote: »

You should find some lawyers who will help you launch a law suit against those three judges if you have evidence that they broke the law in a court of law, in the presence of the world's media.