Charlie Mullins of Pimilico Plumbers

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

Happily it failed.

It didn't fail. The court case was entirely successful.

The Supreme Court held that revoking the European Communities Act 1972 would require an Act of parliament, and so a parliamentary vote on a new Act of parliament authorising revocation of the European Communities Act 1972 was held.

Its not rocket science frankly. There is a difference between outcome and procedure.

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

It didn't fail. The court case was entirely successful.

The Supreme Court held that revoking the European Communities Act 1972 would require an Act of parliament, and so a parliamentary vote on a new Act of parliament authorising revocation of the European Communities Act 1972 was held.

Its not rocket science frankly. There is a difference between outcome and procedure.

Dress it up how you like, it was an attempt to thwart Brexit & it failed miserably.


A happy outcome indeed, albeit at a cost to the taxpayer.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

Dress it up how you like, it was an attempt to thwart Brexit & it failed miserably.

A happy outcome indeed, albeit at a cost to the taxpayer.

Sorry, but procedure is important. We can't have the Prime Minister running around making laws and revoking laws. If you want the Prime Minister to have that power, frankly you might as well just abolish parliament since it would serve no purpose.

The idea that parliament needs to approve laws has been the bedrock of the British constitution for centuries. That is why the English civil war was fought in 1642-51. Its quite right that people were not prepared to see that chucked out of the window.

And to think the sorry mess of a court case could have all been avoided if the government simply did the common sense thing and called a parliamentary vote. As the government ended up doing in the end anyway.

Thrugelmir

steampowered wrote: »

It didn't fail. The court case was entirely successful.

I'm sure those that privately funded the case were hoping for a different outcome. As they've received no benefit personally. In fact the outcome for them has proved somewhat negative. As celebrity status isn't all receiving accolades. For all that gets thrown at Trump and US politics. This is paramount to the same thing. If you've got money. Then you've got influence. Somewhat undermines the principle democracy that we all equal.

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

The idea that parliament needs to approve laws has been the bedrock of the British constitution for centuries. That is why the English civil war was fought in 1642-51. Its quite right that people were not prepared to see that chucked out of the window.

Oh dear.

You do realize, I presume, that as a member of the EU, EU regulations are directly implemented into UK law without the need for legislation from the UK Parliament?

Which does make your quote above sound quite remarkably foolish.

And is, um, precisely the reason most Leave voters voted leave.

As I've said & I'm happy to repeat, the court case funded by Charlie Mullins was a desperate attempt by a sore loser to buy a different outcome to the referendum. Like many others on the remain side he turns out to have no appetite whatsoever for democracy when it does not deliver the outcome he wanted.

Happily he not only failed but has actually given the Tories a stronger hand to negotiate with.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

Oh dear.

You do realize, I presume, that as a member of the EU, EU regulations are directly implemented into UK law without the need for legislation from the UK Parliament?

Of course I realise this.

That happens because parliament has legislated for that through the European Communities Act 1972, which incorporates EU law into UK law.

Section 2 of that legislation reads as follows: All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law.

If you want to revoke the European Communities Act 1972, you need an Act of parliament to do that. The idea that parliament makes the law is the most fundamental part of our legal and political system.

As I've said & I'm happy to repeat, the court case funded by Charlie Mullins was a desperate attempt by a sore loser to buy a different outcome to the referendum. Like many others on the remain side he turns out to have no appetite whatsoever for democracy when it does not deliver the outcome he wanted.

Again, you refuse to distinguish between process and outcome. They are both important. Process is important. The way in which laws are made is important.

I didn't see an option to castrate parliament's law-making power on the ballot paper. I thought one of the main reasons people voted leave was because they wanted to bring power back to parliament.

I think this is a real problem with the Brexit debate. Some people feel so strongly about the Brexit issue (on both sides of the table) that everything else gets steamrolled like it doesn't matter. You seem to be perfectly happy to see the UK's centuries old constitutional settlement torn up and thrown in the bin.

You also don't even seem to care about facts. The fact that your post was entirely false given that this case was about domestic legislation, not European legislation, doesn't even seem to bother you - you just want to throw around criticism towards someone who has a different political viewpoint to yourself.

Quite frankly I would hope most people who voted Brexit did so on the basis that they want parliament to make their laws, and should therefore have been absolutely horrified at the idea that the government should have attempted to revoke an Act of parliament without a parliamentary vote.

Masomnia

steampowered wrote: »

Quite frankly I would hope most people who voted Brexit should have done so on the basis that they want parliament to make their laws, and should therefore have been absolutely horrified at the idea that the government should be able to revoke Acts of parliament.

No one ever suggested that the government should/would be able to revoke acts of parliament.

steampowered

Masomnia wrote: »

No one ever suggested that the government should/would be able to revoke acts of parliament.

This is what the High Court/Court of Appeal/Supreme Court case was about.

The European Communities Act 1972 incorporates EU legislation into UK law, so you need a parliamentary vote to repeal it.

Masomnia

steampowered wrote: »

This is what the High Court/Court of Appeal/Supreme Court case was about.

The European Communities Act 1972 incorporates EU legislation into UK law, so you need a parliamentary vote to repeal it.

Sure, but no one was suggesting that Teresa May would be repealing that without Parliament. The Case was about triggering Article 50, not repealing the 1972 Act. The government have brought forward legislation to trigger Article 50 as they were told by the Supreme Court they would have to, this doesn't repeal the 1972 Act, it's a separate issue.

wotsthat

Legal case about the employment status of a plumber. Central to the case is obviously whether the plumber's employer/ customer supported the leave campaign. Is everything about brexit now?

Surprised Diane Abbott hasn't got a mention yet.