We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If Brexit needs house of commons and Lords backing ...
Options
Comments
-
Edit - I didn't like what I'd written. I'll come back and have another go later.0
-
I suspect May-be is probably breathing a sigh of relief and hoping that the appeal is turned down. This decision will leave a pro-Brexit majority in the Commons able to delay and frustrate the aspirations for a Hard Brexit and lead to a soft one.
There will not be an election as there will not be a a large enough majority in the Commons to vote for it under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This will suit May-be very nicely.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
For years the trough feeding liberal elites like Gina Miller quaffed fine wine whilst British sovereignty was handed over at Maastricht and elsewhere, not a ripple.
Now all of a sudden when the people dare decide the liberal elite are out of touch and only out for themselves, and thus voted for change, these gluttonous snobs want one over on the people once more.
No way, literally over my dead body will these creeps keep us paying £28 million per day in return for uncontrolled mass immigration and ceding sovereignty.0 -
The high court decision appears to be predicated on the idea that invoking A50 is irreversible, which the Supreme Court may well disagree with. I think the Appeal could well go in the government's favour on this basis.
No it was predicated on the view that a royal prerogative cannot overrule the law Parliament has enacted unless that law allows it.
Since the 1972 Act does not allow the Government to change that law by royal prerogative, it cannot be used to invoke A50 which would have the same effect.
If A50 was just about withdrawing from the EU it might be OK but A50 by definition will change a UK law that Parliament enacted.
I agree that the Commons will allow the Government to invoke A50 but it may place caveats on that by requiring them to stop treating Parliament with the contempt it has shown since June.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
See points 5 and especially 6 in the 2 page summary: 'The government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given'
ie. the decision is based on the idea that Article 50 is not reversible. Hence point 6
'Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law... would inevitably be lost'.
Whether rights would 'inevitably' be lost once Article 50 is served is central to this case.
No it is not, both sides accept that it is a fact so it is not in dispute. The Central case is whether hundreds of years of history can overturned by a royal prerogative being used to change a law. Para 7 makes this very clear.
Try reading para 22 of the full judgement.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
No it is not, both sides accept that it is a fact so it is not in dispute. The Central case is whether hundreds of years of history can overturned by a royal prerogative being used to change a law. Para 7 makes this very clear.
Try reading para 22 of the full judgement.
what hundreds of law is that?0 -
-
what comtempt is that?
By seeking to revoke a law enacted by Parliament using the royal prerogative.
By not being willing to state its objectives for the negotiations.
To anticipate your reply, I agree that it would undermine the negotiations to state the red lines and the areas we would be prepared to be flexible about etc. But at the start of the negotiations we will inevitably state in some detail "this is what we want". I agree we may not get it but since it is our starting position I cannot see why it cannot be stated to Parliament.
For example we might say:
We will withdraw from the Common Agriculture Policy immediately
We will withdraw from the European Defence Agency immediately
We wish to be included in the HORIZON 2020 Programme
We wish to retain the European Arrest Warrant
We wish to retain the EHIC health care arrangements.
I am not saying these things specifically but stating some basic principles and objectives would make it clear what kind of Brexit we are seeking. That is not disclosing anything other than what we are probably planning to say at the start.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Wow what day yesterday. I love it when things get shaken up and the 'people' start to engage in politics. Regardless of the outcome it is certainly good more people are aware of how UK democracy works...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards