No Brexit eventually?!

dggar

Zanderman wrote: »

Er, no, that's not it at all. In fact it's complete nonsense...

We were given the opportunity to say whether we wanted to stay in or leave the EU.That was the only question asked. We said we wanted to leave.That was the only democratic decision we made, or were asked to make. That has not changed.

The High Court decision was about how we legislate to leave, how the decisions and bargaining is made, and whether ministers alone or Parliament should have the upper hand in that process.

It was initiated by people who were worried that Parliament was being side-stepped - which is wrong in our democracy.

The court decision was nothing to do with altering the referendum result. It was not about it at all. It was about how we implement the referendum result.

If people (including half the newspapers) can't grasp this simple fact I lose hope for us all!

Yes, there is, in theory, a chance for Parliament to say it won't honour the result. But that is very very very very unlikely. The main issue, which we should be pleased about, is the Parliament has been re-affirmed as the legislative body - and that Parliament decides how we should leave - which will require a huge amount of complex legislation.

This principle (being in charge of our own laws) is the very thing the Brexit camp wanted to uphold, so i don't understand why so many people are crying foul. This is undeniably the proper route.

Very good post, however I think "choose not to understand" or "ignore" might be a better choice of words.

Anthorn

Zanderman wrote: »

Er, no, that's not it at all. In fact it's complete nonsense...

The High Court decision was about how we legislate to leave, how the decisions and bargaining is made, and whether ministers alone or Parliament should have the upper hand in that process.

It was initiated by people who were worried that Parliament was being side-stepped - which is wrong in our democracy.

The court decision was nothing to do with altering the referendum result. It was not about it at all. It was about how we implement the referendum result.

The court decision provides the means by which the will of the people, the referendum result, can be altered. But that's not the final decision. Appeal to come yet.

Otherwise you agree with my post which you say is "complete nonesense".

Zanderman

Anthorn wrote: »

The court decision provides the means by which the will of the people, the referendum result, can be altered. But that's not the final decision. Appeal to come yet.

Otherwise you agree with my post which you say is "complete nonesense".

Your post said " we decided but those who disagree with the democratic decision of the majority of the people challenged it and were supported by the court."

That IS complete nonsense. We decided to leave. The Court decision was brought by people worried about the Government not consulting Parliament on HOW to leave. They were not disagreeing with the democratic decision to leave and that so that wasn't what the court case was about.

So the court didn't support their 'disagreeing with the democratic decision' because they weren't disagreeing with it. How hard is that to understand?

The court case was about how we progress the decision. Who takes the authority. Not about the decision. If you can't see that distinction then I give up on trying to explain it!! I've repeated it several times now.

You should, if you're a Brexit supporter, be PLEASED with the court decision. It provides for a much better thought-through Brexit. Using Parliament. Which is the correct authority to do this sort of thing (a point which was repeatedly made as part of the reasons for wanting Brexit). Yes it might be more protracted - but it will, almost certainly, be better.

This is my last post on the subject! I should leave this sort of thread well alone!!

enthusiasticsaver

This is what you get when you ask for a straight yes or no answer to an undetermined question. The referendum should have offered more choices than just in or out of the EU. Still I look forward to MPS and the other house debating this to eternity.

Anthorn

Zanderman wrote: »

Your post said " we decided but those who disagree with the democratic decision of the majority of the people challenged it and were supported by the court."

That IS complete nonsense. We decided to leave. The Court decision was brought by people worried about the Government not consulting Parliament on HOW to leave. They were not disagreeing with the democratic decision to leave and that so that wasn't what the court case was about.

So the court didn't support their 'disagreeing with the democratic decision' because they weren't disagreeing with it. How hard is that to understand?

The court case was about how we progress the decision. Who takes the authority. Not about the decision. If you can't see that distinction then I give up on trying to explain it!! I've repeated it several times now.

You should, if you're a Brexit supporter, be PLEASED with the court decision. It provides for a much better thought-through Brexit. Using Parliament. Which is the correct authority to do this sort of thing (a point which was repeatedly made as part of the reasons for wanting Brexit). Yes it might be more protracted - but it will, almost certainly, be better.

This is my last post on the subject! I should leave this sort of thread well alone!!

So if everyone agreed with the referendum result the case would still have been taken to court? Doubtful I'd say but hey anything is possible but not necessarily probable.

System

I'm still not sure that constitutional theory has anything to do with current accounts :rotfl:

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

So if everyone agreed with the referendum result the case would still have been taken to court? Doubtful I'd say but hey anything is possible but not necessarily probable.

Wonder what would've happened if Article 50 had already been triggered by the Government and the Court then deemed it was triggered unlawfully :rotfl:

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

Wonder what would've happened if Article 50 had already been triggered by the Government and the Court then deemed it was triggered unlawfully :rotfl:

Most likely sent to the European Court Of Justice ROFL.

jumperabv3

Ed-1 wrote: »

Wonder what would've happened if Article 50 had already been triggered by the Government and the Court then deemed it was triggered unlawfully :rotfl:

Going back to my very 1st post in this thread (I opened it) ... looks like I wasn't far from reality at all.

Corbyn said he could block Article 50:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-could-block-article-50-over-single-market-access-concerns-jeremy-corbyn-says/ar-AAjWVBy?ocid=spartandhp

Just popped up as fresh news on my MSN Internet Explorer browser.

FYI.

PeacefulWaters

There are various ways politicians could get in the way of the process.

It's a dangerous game though that risks constitutional crisis, civil unrest etc.