[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

AGain this is all irrelevant because the UK has parliamentary sovereignity. A referendum is an opinion poll of how the public believes parliament should proceed but it holds absolutely zero legal weight. Is it morally correct for parliament to go against such a vote after agreeing to hold one? No, it probably isn't, certainly not with a clear result. The low margin does muddy the waters a bit, but that's another discussion. The point is; even if 100% of the public voted for something in a referendum, and we already knew that 100% of parliament would vote it through, it would still have to proceed that way because we have parliamentary sovreignity.

I really don't get why people are struggling with this concept so much. I mean... if you want to start another thread discussing the merits and drawbacks of parliamentary sovreignity and suggest that we should abandon it and find another system, fine, that would be a perfectly valid debate. But it's irrelevant in this one because we DO currently have it, and parliament MUST vote for the triggering of article 50 to be legal. Maybe that stings / is crappy / doesn't seem fair / seems needless / whatever but... ... ... you could say that about countless laws.

It's great news for united kingdom if a referendum is just an opinion poll, Scotland need never have another then?

I'm not struggling at all TS, just explaining how I believed it would play out to those who keep putting words into my mouth. That may be irrelevant to you but I can't help that. Parliament may have to have a vote on article 50 if the supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court. Until such time the outcome is still not certain. I don't know what the government's appeal will say or how the Supreme Court will decide and neither do you. To say that this will happen is premature. Either way Brexit will happen. Though I suspect if the high court judgement is upheld there may be more attempts to legally slow or halt the process. My guess is this was a test case for those who brought it. As I said before time will tell.

However since I keep being told people don't understand me, I don't make sense and my posts are irrelevant I might as well take my opinion off as I'm starting to feel like I'm talking in tongues.

[arista]

7th Dec
The Appeal.

Lovely
then we can get back on Track

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It's great news for united kingdom if a referendum is just an opinion poll, Scotland need never have another then?

I'm not struggling at all TS, just explaining how I believed it would play out to those who keep putting words into my mouth. That may be irrelevant to you but I can't help that. Parliament may have to have a vote on article 50 if the supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court. Until such time the outcome is still not certain. I don't know what the government's appeal will say or how the Supreme Court will decide and neither do you. To say that this will happen is premature. Either way Brexit will happen. Though I suspect if the high court judgement is upheld there may be more attempts to legally slow or halt the process. My guess is this was a test case for those who brought it. As I said before time will tell.

However since I keep being told people don't understand me, I don't make sense and my posts are irrelevant I might as well take my opinion off as I'm starting to feel like I'm talking in tongues.

I don't know how they will decide, but I do know how they should decide. If they choose to bypass the law for the sake of convenience then something very ****ing dodgy is going on.

And like I said, it doesn't mean that referenda are pointless. Parliament SHOULD listen to them and uphold the will of the people as far as is possible / realistic. However that still doesn't mean that there doesn't have to be a second parliamentary vote to enact major change.

There does.

Because we have parliamentary sovreignty.

That is the definition of parliamentary sovreignty.

That is why the high court judges looked at the law and said "Yup this is obviously what needs to happen". All of the Brexit papers making out like they're trying to "stop Brexit". It's ridiculous. They are applying the simple, unbiased, letter of the law, without any ulterior motive and one would HOPE that the supreme court would do exactly the same.

[Northern Monkey]

Common sense

Youtube video

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Common sense

Youtube video

Finally someone that has done his homework and knows what he is talking about

He is more than a match for that arrogant woman who seeks to put her opinion over and above the majority.

[jaxie]

"Feared by the bad, loved by the good, Robin Hood, Robin Hood.."

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Common sense

Youtube video

I have to ask this as a bystander (this would be too frustrating for me as a citizen)... I think they should pack it in, go with the official law and just follow through with the formality if they have to... appealing it lengthens the process. Wouldn't that go against the interests of those wishing to leave?...

Why do people not want a vote on this?

It sounded like to me it too would since most seem to agree they will abide by the public's decision to leave, so what is the harm in casting a public vote for leaving?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Maru

I have to ask this as a bystander (this would be too frustrating for me as a citizen)... I think they should pack it in, go with the official law and just follow through with the formality if they have to... appealing it lengthens the process. Wouldn't that go against the interests of those wishing to leave?...

Why do people not want a vote on this?

It sounded like to me it too would since most seem to agree they will abide by the public's decision to leave, so what is the harm in casting a public vote for leaving?

I think for the most part because it's not necessary. There are many times, as quoted in the clip, where treaties have been passed without having to go through parliament. It doesn't seem to make sense that to leave treaties that haven't been voted in parliament, we have to vote in parliament.

I think probably a lot of people are worried about political blackmail and being forced into an EU lite to get the vote through at all. The leader of the opposition has already made threats. And in fact made himself look a total loser in doing so. If he is going to make demands, I say we need a referendum on his demands and whether the people actually want them. He isn't speaking for me.

If we're going to micro manage this thing we can really micro manage it and go back to whether the referendum to stay in the common market a year after entering in the 70s was actually valid.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I think for the most part because it's not necessary. There are many times, as quoted in the clip, where treaties have been passed without having to go through parliament. It doesn't seem to make sense that to leave treaties that haven't been voted in parliament, we have to vote in parliament.

I think probably a lot of people are worried about political blackmail and being forced into an EU lite to get the vote through at all. The leader of the opposition has already made threats.

Sounds like AHCA Brexit-style.

And in fact made himself look a total loser in doing so.

I hate when they do that.

If he is going to make demands, I say we need a referendum on his demands and whether the people actually want them. He isn't speaking for me.

Do the people write your parliament like we write Congress here? Will you show up with pitchforks? At least you live in a country small enough that that is practical to do. I lived 30 minutes from DC when I was in the northeast...that was a big perk. I could drive over to Obama's house and shake his fence. Now I think they'll probably tazer you if you try... they've gotten more knee-jerky since that one guy jumped the fence and scaled the lawn into the WH.

If we're going to micro manage this thing we can really micro manage it and go back to whether the referendum to stay in the common market a year after entering in the 70s was actually valid.

I'm not old enough to have this kind of perspective, but is it me or does it take longer for govts now to decide to do things? I'd read an article with rule changes they made to cracking deals behind closed doors in Congress... that helped to gum up the works. However, I feel like when you have social media, internet, etc... it's harder to even get things done transparently. Everything is scrutinized and your enemies will be there with gasoline and a match anytime you attempt to do something they don't agree with you on... makes it hard to make a move on these things.


I really hope Brexit doesn't turn into AHCA. If the UK can get it together and actually do this thing and make it work the way it is intended, our countries and others will look to yours as a leader and a starting model towards modernizing govt.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Finally someone that has done his homework and knows what he is talking about

He is more than a match for that arrogant woman who seeks to put her opinion over and above the majority.

Well waddya know some ukipper knows more than the most senior judge in the land..

Did the majority specifically state they did not want parliament to aid the negotiations? ..I missed that.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well waddya know some ukipper knows more than the most senior judge in the land..

Did the majority specifically state they did not want parliament to aid the negotiations? ..I missed that.

Aiding and abetting more like!

[Kizzy]

Called it...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7403051.html

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Called it...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7403051.html

Called what?
All it says is that they're not saying anything about Brexit plans yet.You have to actually read beyond the first paragraph and misleading title.

'A Government spokesperson said: “This Government’s commitment to building a country that works for everyone means we will maintain and enhance workers’ rights as we leave the EU.

“The process is straightforward: at the point of exit we will transfer the body of EU law into domestic legislation including all the protection provided for workers. The prime minister and secretary of state for leaving the EU have been absolutely clear about that."

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Wee Burney is getting involved

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Called what?
All it says is that they're not saying anything about Brexit plans yet.You have to actually read beyond the first paragraph and misleading title.

'A Government spokesperson said: “This Government’s commitment to building a country that works for everyone means we will maintain and enhance workers’ rights as we leave the EU.

“The process is straightforward: at the point of exit we will transfer the body of EU law into domestic legislation including all the protection provided for workers. The prime minister and secretary of state for leaving the EU have been absolutely clear about that."

That's how I read it too.

[Jack_]

You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! The mind boggles, it really does.

This isn't about overturning Brexit at all - in fact many MPs would vote against it at their peril (there'd probably be riots or some **** let's be honest), and if worse came to worse the government would be whipped into enacting it anyway. What this is about is ensuring that both parliament votes on legislation in much the same way they would most other things (this is pretty important, after all!) and that the terms of us leaving - which were not voted on on June 23 - can be debated freely and openly, as they should be, by all sides of the political spectrum.

It is however worth pointing out that this referendum was only advisory and does not - technically speaking anyway - have to be listened to. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was binding, so perhaps Farage and co should've concentrated on this a little more instead of producing irrelevant 'Breaking Point' posters with pictures of refugees from non-EU countries just a thought

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Wee Burney is getting involved

I bet the Scottish fishermen will love her.

She's not doing you Any favours LT.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! The mind boggles, it really does.

This isn't about overturning Brexit at all - in fact many MPs would vote against it at their peril (there'd probably be riots or some **** let's be honest), and if worse came to worse the government would be whipped into enacting it anyway. What this is about is ensuring that both parliament votes on legislation in much the same way they would most other things (this is pretty important, after all!) and that the terms of us leaving - which were not voted on on June 23 - can be debated freely and openly, as they should be, by all sides of the political spectrum.

It is however worth pointing out that this referendum was only advisory and does not - technically speaking anyway - have to be listened to. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was binding, so perhaps Farage and co should've concentrated on this a little more instead of producing irrelevant 'Breaking Point' posters with pictures of refugees from non-EU countries just a thought

You do have to laugh at remoaners who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue.

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if remoaners are now the champions of democracy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! The mind boggles, it really does.

This isn't about overturning Brexit at all - in fact many MPs would vote against it at their peril (there'd probably be riots or some **** let's be honest), and if worse came to worse the government would be whipped into enacting it anyway. What this is about is ensuring that both parliament votes on legislation in much the same way they would most other things (this is pretty important, after all!) and that the terms of us leaving - which were not voted on on June 23 - can be debated freely and openly, as they should be, by all sides of the political spectrum.

It is however worth pointing out that this referendum was only advisory and does not - technically speaking anyway - have to be listened to. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was binding, so perhaps Farage and co should've concentrated on this a little more instead of producing irrelevant 'Breaking Point' posters with pictures of refugees from non-EU countries just a thought

"You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! "

who specifically are you referring to?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You do have to laugh at reminders who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue.

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if reminders are now the champions of democracy.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Could have waited until I fixed the typos!

[Northern Monkey]

The thing is.There's not actually anything to vote on in parliament apart from to trigger article fifty.It doesn't matter what the remainers in parliament ask for because when it comes to the negotiations they may not and probably won't get what they want.It does'nt actually make any difference what is said in parliament.It is just childish tactics from some bitter remainers to try and cause trouble instead of letting the process run smoothly.The more they delay things and want the government to give away their negotiating position then the more chance we will get a hard Brexit(the thing remainers say they don't want).It's just counter productive.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You do have to laugh at remoaners who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue.

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if remoaners are now the champions of democracy.

Post of the thread

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

The thing is.There's not actually anything to vote on in parliament apart from to trigger article fifty.It doesn't matter what the remainers in parliament ask for because when it comes to the negotiations they may not and probably won't get what they want.It does'nt actually make any difference what is said in parliament.It is just childish tactics from some bitter remainers to try and cause trouble instead of letting the process run smoothly.The more they delay things and want the government to give away their negotiating position then the more chance we will get a hard Brexit(the thing remainers say they don't want).It's just counter productive.

This is exactly it. There is nothing right now to debate and when the negotiators go to the EU and ask for things it could all be non non non! It's all just posturing and tactics by those who want their way to take legal action over anything they can. There is now another case being considered over claims made during the campaign. They are trying to eat up years with legal actions and keep us in the EU.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

This is exactly it. There is nothing right now to debate and when the negotiators go to the EU and ask for things it could all be non non non! It's all just posturing and tactics by those who want their way to take legal action over anything they can. There is now another case being considered over claims made during the campaign. They are trying to eat up years with legal actions and keep us in the EU.

Well there's plenty from both sides of the campaign that could be scrutinised if they were going to go that route.