Supreme Court On Brexit News

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Has voted 8 to 3 the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament. Going to be an interesting few months probably years. 

[oaksoft]

No idea why they fought this. They have an overall majority so the vote should be a formality.

[Kendo]

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

No idea why they fought this. They have an overall majority so the vote should be a formality.

Cause not all Tories support Brexit. 

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

No idea why they fought this. They have an overall majority so the vote should be a formality.

As kendo says the Conservative party are divided on this issue with it being unlikely they'll be able to find a position they can all agree on, they've already had one MP resign this parliament over their handling of the issue, because of this TM's government want to do as much of the Brexit process as possible behind closed doors and even though they were unlikely to have the original verdict overturned - they were almost bound to try. While I don't expect the Tories to fracture, there is the possibility of more defections to UKIP on one side or the Lib-Dems on the other. On the whole I think it will tend to make the Government more inclined to take a hard-Brexit stance during the process as I think they will be more worried about defections to UKIP.

********************

As part of the ruling the Court have rejected the SNP's case that they should get a say before Article 50 is triggered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38721681

Edited January 24, 2017 by Bud the Baker

[DougJamie]

I still reckon this is all a sham.

May never wanted to leave, now she proposes the hardest Brexit, I reckon they knew they would "lose" this vote, and I still believe we wont leave at all

[antrin]

I think it's the logical and correct decision.

 

Brexit referendum was just that.  A referendum. 

This country is run by Parliamentary edict - not by what a lot of folk say down the pub.

It's also not in the power of an unelected leader in a divided party to be sole arbiter of this momentous decision.

It costs a lot of dosh to keep those dogs in Parliament - it's their job to bark at the right times.  Not ours.

Cameron f**ked up by even offering that referendum just to shut his party in-fighting up.  The Tories are to blame.

Labour's in-fighting caused them to elect a leader who had no real opinion on the subject so they were headless chickens throughout the process.  Labour is to blame.

At least a million Scots voted for Brexit, so the SNP are to blame.

I no longer care if there is a brexit or not.  A lot of the damage has been done.  If there was any country with the capacity to muddle through such a dramatic separation from all its trading partners, I believe that would be the UK. 

We'll keep on, keeping on. 

[DougJamie]

Antrin, totally agree................ Its all a big game.......

Beginning to think Sturgeon couldnt get drunk in a brewery............... there is something fundamentally wrong there........... maybe the past is the present for the SNPs.. in that they make a noise but even with mandates cant deliver.................

 

But your right, so much harm is being done, whilst we stumble from one few point to another and we all look very stupid.............. Most Europeans don't like Brits and they are enjoying the show.................. and yes Lord Cameron will go down in history as one of the greatest cock up artists in history 

 

 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Kendo said:

Cause not all Tories support Brexit. 

Labour said this morning that they wouldn't oppose it out of respect for the electorate.

This won't be blocked.

[melmac]

There's been revolution for less. Parliament passed the buck on this subject and they are now simply pointing the fingers at the people who voted them into high paying part time jobs.

Get Hadrian's Wall back up, build the wall, build the wall, build the wall.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

2 hours ago, DougJamie said:

I still reckon this is all a sham.

May never wanted to leave, now she proposes the hardest Brexit, I reckon they knew they would "lose" this vote, and I still believe we wont leave at all

Be careful you will be charged of being guilty of a conspiracy lol. 

[northstbuddie]

This situation sums up nicely just why so many Scots are dissatisfied with the so-called Union in its present form.

We are told that we are equal partners with a neighbouring country which has 10 times the population of Scotland's and surprise surprise we get outvoted on important issues like Brexit but are assured that the 'Government' will listen to the views of the Scottish people but then in practice nonchalantly ignore them completely.

If you are happy with the current voting system and the way the Little Britain mentality functions you will be quite happy to continue supporting Brexit which will involve cutting ties with our closest and largest trading partners (by some considerable margin) and suffering all the financial implications that will involve - makes a lot of sense?

However, the SNP should be careful not to jeopardise Scotland's future by pursuing half-baked policies of its own, just like the UK Parliament has on Europe. It seems likely (to me at least) that another Scottish referendum will end up with another 'NO' vote.

What is likely to attract greater support is the introduction of a federal set up within the UK which would keep most people happy for most of the time.

[saint in exile]

21 minutes ago, melmac said:

There's been revolution for less. Parliament passed the buck on this subject and they are now simply pointing the fingers at the people who voted them into high paying part time jobs.

Get Hadrian's Wall back up, build the wall, build the wall, build the wall.

And make the Mexicans pay for it!  What do you mean, that's the wrong wall?

[antrin]

15 minutes ago, northstbuddie said:

This situation sums up nicely just why so many Scots are dissatisfied with the so-called Union in its present form.

We are told that we are equal partners with a neighbouring country which has 10 times the population of Scotland's and surprise surprise we get outvoted on important issues like Brexit but are assured that the 'Government' will listen to the views of the Scottish people but then in practice nonchalantly ignore them completely.

If you are happy with the current voting system and the way the Little Britain mentality functions you will be quite happy to continue supporting Brexit which will involve cutting ties with our closest and largest trading partners (by some considerable margin) and suffering all the financial implications that will involve - makes a lot of sense?

However, the SNP should be careful not to jeopardise Scotland's future by pursuing half-baked policies of its own, just like the UK Parliament has on Europe. It seems likely (to me at least) that another Scottish referendum will end up with another 'NO' vote.

What is likely to attract greater support is the introduction of a federal set up within the UK which would keep most people happy for most of the time.

And yet "London" voted the same way as "Scotland" while a million+ Scots voted for Brexit...

[antrin]

27 minutes ago, melmac said:

There's been revolution for less. Parliament passed the buck on this subject and they are now simply pointing the fingers at the people who voted them into high paying part time jobs.

Get Hadrian's Wall back up, build the wall, build the wall, build the wall.

I don't really think the Engerlish exit vote was really them wanting to put that wall back up...

[TediousTom]

I am particularly enjoying the fact that this debate/conversation is being carried out in a polite and adult like fashion.  Stuart Dick's coupon will be turning a darker shade of purple if he see's this thread.  For once we are having a political discussion and Mr Dick is not making every second post....marvellous, buddie marvellous indeed.

 

In my humble opinion the court have got it wrong today.  A referendum was carried out, the wishes of the people registered all with the promise that article 50 would be triggered the morning the brexit vote was announced.  David Cameron lied, Gideon Osbourne lied and yet the people of the United Kingdom still voted to leave.  Article 50 should have already been triggered and all this sham of a decision will do will be to enable some pantomine politics from Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk.  This is playing firmly into the hands of the SNP who have to vote against triggering article 50 as they are backed into a corner.

 

We live in interesting times.  I am no fan of the Tories but we really need to let them get on with the job of bringing about brexit without this political sideshow overshadowing everything. 

 

 

[northstbuddie]

2 hours ago, TediousTom said:

I am particularly enjoying the fact that this debate/conversation is being carried out in a polite and adult like fashion.  Stuart Dick's coupon will be turning a darker shade of purple if he see's this thread.  For once we are having a political discussion and Mr Dick is not making every second post....marvellous, buddie marvellous indeed.

 

In my humble opinion the court have got it wrong today.  A referendum was carried out, the wishes of the people registered all with the promise that article 50 would be triggered the morning the brexit vote was announced.  David Cameron lied, Gideon Osbourne lied and yet the people of the United Kingdom still voted to leave.  Article 50 should have already been triggered and all this sham of a decision will do will be to enable some pantomine politics from Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk.  This is playing firmly into the hands of the SNP who have to vote against triggering article 50 as they are backed into a corner.

 

We live in interesting times.  I am no fan of the Tories but we really need to let them get on with the job of bringing about brexit without this political sideshow overshadowing everything. 

 

 

Even although the vast majority of Uk residents will be considerably worse off financially?

"Brexit" was not mentioned in the referendum voting paper (check for yourself) - this was a 'Little Britain' slogan devised by the English right wing press.

"Brexit means Brexit" was in turn, a catch phrase penned by the Tory propaganda machine and mouthed by Theresa Maybe, who was a remainer.

But what does "Brexit means Brexit" mean?

However if it means it will hit us severely in our pockets - what then, UK Brexiters?

Edited January 24, 2017 by northstbuddie

[Westmarcher]

2 hours ago, TediousTom said:

In my humble opinion the court have got it wrong today. 

The rule of law must be upheld, TT.  By not doing so, you are setting a dangerous precedent. If a law doesn’t suit you, it is for Parliament to propose, debate and agree on the amendments and pass a new law. This is the kind of thing that safeguards our freedom. 

[zurich_allan]

The rule of law must be upheld, TT.  By not doing so, you are setting a dangerous precedent. If a law doesn’t suit you, it is for Parliament to propose, debate and agree on the amendments and pass a new law. This is the kind of thing that safeguards our freedom. 

Correct. TT, I understand your thinking, but it can't work like that. Our membership of the EU was enshrined in an Act of parliament, and it is for parliament to amend, abolish, or replace an existing Act. If the Government is allowed to bypass the ordinary democratic parliamentary process to abolish an existing Act, it potentially opens the floodgates for them to pick and choose what other Acts they don't agree with and arbitrarily abolish them too. It would be a complete abuse / misuse of power.

This Supreme Court decision was not really related to Brexit at all, it was to do with what the Government can and can't do in an attempt to undermine the formal democratic process.

In my opinion the result was absolutely correct from a pure constitutional law perspective. Frankly I'm astonished that 3 of the 11 judges dissented!

[saint in exile]

43 minutes ago, zurich_allan said:

In my opinion the result was absolutely correct from a pure constitutional law perspective. Frankly I'm astonished that 3 of the 11 judges dissented!

I was going to ask you specifically about that point.  Surely, at the level this appeal was examined, it should be solely about the word of law, not about its possible interpretations.  These are the most senior, arguably most able, legal minds in the country, yet they can't agree, leaving some level of ambiguity.  That cannot be right.

[zurich_allan]

I was going to ask you specifically about that point.  Surely, at the level this appeal was examined, it should be solely about the word of law, not about its possible interpretations.  These are the most senior, arguably most able, legal minds in the country, yet they can't agree, leaving some level of ambiguity.  That cannot be right.

I'll need to try and get hold of the full transcript to get the content and reasoning the dissenting opinions before making a full comment, but to at least some extent I'd expect nothing less. In my PhD thesis I had to point out some inconsistency in Supreme court judges' opinions (Baroness Hale being one), so it's certainly not new. In this particular case I'm surprised though, because to me this was a cut and dried issue with very little room for ambiguity.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Scottish parliament you can't vote on it. Democracy everything British law and western governments tell us we stand up too and fight for.                                                                                                                  Conspiracy all legal rights reserved lol. 

[TediousTom]

15 hours ago, northstbuddie said:

1)  Even although the vast majority of Uk residents will be considerably worse off financially?

"Brexit" was not mentioned in the referendum voting paper (check for yourself) - this was a 'Little Britain' slogan devised by the English right wing press.

"Brexit means Brexit" was in turn, a catch phrase penned by the Tory propaganda machine and mouthed by Theresa Maybe, who was a remainer.

But what does "Brexit means Brexit" mean?

However if it means it will hit us severely in our pockets - what then, UK Brexiters?

1)  You may be correct, I think you are incorrect.  The fact is no-one as yet knows what brexit will look like.  Personally I believe that the UK will be better off by some margin owing to the fact that we will be free to trade with the any nation in the world who wishes to trade with us.  The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating.

 

2)  The debate wasn't about the merits of brexit (that's what the referendum was for) but rather the courts decision to involve parliament. 

 

3)  What a splendid and enjoyable discussion.  People have politely disagreed and conversed in a splendid fashion.  Normally insults including the words "nazi" and "liberal" are being banded about by a certain sin binner who has a reputation for hijacking such political discussion to further a certain hate filled agenda.  Long live the sin bin, long live it indeed!

[antrin]

2 hours ago, TediousTom said:

 

2)  The debate wasn't about the merits of brexit (that's what the referendum was for) but rather the courts decision to involve parliament. 

No.

the referendum was for shutting up the dissenters in the Tory party.  No more nor less: that failed.

'debate' here, is about the the May/Tory party decision to IGNORE parliament and act on the result of that (failed, from Cameron's PoV) referendum.  

That's why Ms Miller and "another" wanted the government's proposed action to go to judicial review.  

Other than a reflection... A snapshot of public opinion, referenda are irrelevant.

 

only parliament can make decisions such as decisions about leaving a union that parliament decided we should enter all those years ago.

[Reynard]

2 hours ago, antrin said:

No.

the referendum was for shutting up the dissenters in the Tory party.  No more nor less: that failed.

'debate' here, is about the the May/Tory party decision to IGNORE parliament and act on the result of that (failed, from Cameron's PoV) referendum.  

That's why Ms Miller and "another" wanted the government's proposed action to go to judicial review.  

Other than a reflection... A snapshot of public opinion, referenda are irrelevant.

 

only parliament can make decisions such as decisions about leaving a union that parliament decided we should enter all those years ago.

We were taken into the EEC using prerogative powers by Heath.

 

The court case was already irrelevant as parliament had voted in December to agree to trigger article 50 by the end of May deadline. 

 

The only useful thing we learned yesterday was that the SNP bid to have the devolved assemblies being able to veto was dismissed unanimously.

 

Other than that, we will be triggering article 50 and starting the process of leaving on the PMs timetable.

[Reynard]

On 1/24/2017 at 9:48 AM, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Has voted 8 to 3 the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament. Going to be an interesting few months probably years. 

Or few weeks more likely