Will Govt. win in Supreme Court?

Thrugelmir

movilogo wrote: »

The way I see it parliament passed it assuming Remain would win. Now the result is not to their liking and they want execues to examine it again (i.e. making remain win again).

MP's in the main will no doubt represent the views of their constituents rather their own personal views. There's a General Election in 2020. The electorate won't be forgiving.

steampowered

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Nowhere in all this time frame was the possibility of the Referendum Act being incorrect or inadequate ever mooted.

I don't think this decision means there is anything wrong with the Referendum Act. The Referendum Act was perfectly adequate for what it was designed to achieve - a referendum to decide whether the UK should, in principle, leave or stay in the EU.

I don't think the Referendum Act was designed to cover the detailed mechanics of how this will take place such as when exactly the UK will give its Article 50 notice, what the negotiation process is, and how it will all work. It would not have been practical to resolve all those issues before the referendum.

Those issues all need to be properly thought through. I suppose the dispute was whether those issues need to be voted on by parliament or whether the government can go and decide them. I think it is makes perfect sense that they should go to parliament.

steampowered

movilogo wrote: »

The way I see it parliament passed it assuming Remain would win. Now the result is not to their liking and they want execues to examine it again (i.e. making remain win again).

If law is so straight forward to implement, why do we need judges there - we can write an artificial intelligence algorithm to interpret the law (and save money on judges salaries).

The real world is a bit more complicated than "yes" and "no". It would not have been practical to resolve issues such as how the process will work, when the UK serves its Article 50 notice etc. etc. etc. before the referendum.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

MP's in the main will no doubt represent the views of their constituents rather their own personal views. There's a General Election in 2020. The electorate won't be forgiving.

So what does my MP do? My particular constituency voted (I believe) 50.2% to leave.

If he voted to leave, he could very possibly be taken out by a LD candidate at a GE (which if I had my own way, I'd be the one standing against him), if he voted to remain, he'd be accused of not keeping with the 'will of the people'.

Remember in the latter case, he'd get the 'always voted Tory' types and some leavers, with the rest of the leavers splitting between UKIP/Lab, and a majority of remainers voting LD. The question is whether what the Cons would lose, would make a LD gain. Possibly, possibly not.

Very unwinnable situation IMO.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Very unwinnable situation IMO.

There's nothing like a single issue to address the electorates minds. Politics is not central to the majority of people. First comes them themselves. Change may only be temporary of course. Enough to ruin a career though.

Ed-1

HornetSaver wrote: »

It does strike me that she has fallen into the same electoral trap as Gordon Brown.

She has made a convincing case for why calling a General Election will be a bad idea and a waste of time. It doesn't change the fact that with every month she leaves it, the strengthening of her majority (in Brown's case, retention) becomes less of a certainty. Any momentum the constitutional faultlines might have in changing the balance of political support will increase the longer she fails to call it.

The problem for May is the prime minister no longer has the freedom to call an election due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. A Parliament now lasts 5 years (rather than a maximum of 5 years) unless 2/3rds of Parliament vote for an early election.

Gordon Brown had the freedom and choice to call an early election if he wanted to. May doesn't.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

But the judiciary aren't attempting to delay the implementation of Article 50; they are just deciding on how it is done, according to the laws.

Since parliament have a long track record of proposing and implementing badly worded and half baked laws, there's quite often a lot of analysis and debate involved. The judiciary have to go by what is written and any precedents, rather than what was intended or how the public feel. They interpret only, any other issues are up to Parliament to correct.

You're framing it such that all the judiciary are doing is trying to stall A50 due to some assumed bias, but the only reason is has stalled at all is because the interpretation of the law is that an Act of Parliament is required in order to enact it.

Why are you deliberately misinterpreting what I very clearly say?

those using the judiciary to attempt to delay

See those words?
"Those using...."
There is absolutely no mention or even hint there of the judiciary acting independently, nor of them being a causal factor in any delay.
You cannot however deny that due process takes time.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Also this from today:

Theresa May told Angela Merkel work to sever ties with Brussels was proceeding as planned and "we stand ready to trigger Article 50 before the end of March, or by the end of March 2017".

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-assures-angela-merkel-brexit-remains-on-track-10661883

Whatever the outcome it does at least sound like eventualities are being prepared-for.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Also this from today:

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-assures-angela-merkel-brexit-remains-on-track-10661883

Whatever the outcome it does at least sound like eventualities are being prepared-for.

Looks to me like she's responded to claims of 'you don't have a plan!' by saying 'oh yes we do and that's all I have to say on the matter'.

Filo25

Ed-1 wrote: »

The problem for May is the prime minister no longer has the freedom to call an election due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. A Parliament now lasts 5 years (rather than a maximum of 5 years) unless 2/3rds of Parliament vote for an early election.

Gordon Brown had the freedom and choice to call an early election if he wanted to. May doesn't.

Her hands aren't tied as much as you might think as she could simply repeal the Act with a simple majority in parliament.