[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Parliament already voted to give us the referendum, and in the case of a leave vote that means activating article 50. So you could say they already set the process in motion by voting in faboir of a referendum. There were campaigns, debates, everyone had their say. I don't see why the leaving needs to be micro managed. We need to just get on with it. Until they have some talks there isn't really anything to tell parliament so it all just seems pointless. I suppose we have to wait now and see what the supreme Court says.

It doesn't matter. There has to be a parliamentary vote on enacting something like Article 50 before it happens. Period. Not in the run up to it, not in arranging a referrendum on it, but literally a vote to trigger it. Like I said it's irrelevant whether it's "right or wrong", whether it seems like needless micromanagement, even whether it's something that should be changed in future... ... ... the fact it, it is currently there, on paper, that this needs to be the case.

Realistically, it's not going to stop the EU exit from happening. Look on it as a formality, even. But it's one that needs to happen because it is currently the law and - like I said - NO ONE should EVER be advocating for any government to selectively pick and choose when and where they feel like following the written letter of constitutional law. Whether you agree with what they're putting through or not. Setting a precedent that it's OK to sometimes just say "Nah that law is stupid, we'll do it anyway" is dangerous and undemocratic. I don't say this as a remain supporter... I only say it as someone who knows that giving the government a blank chequebook to ignore signed documents is sheer madness.

When they approved in recent years military action, no one wanted them to micro manage every bomb dropped. Perhaps that's when such questions should have been asked. Where was the moral and political outcry then?

This is a completely different scenario. It doesn't relate in the slightest.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It doesn't matter. There has to be a parliamentary vote on enacting something like Article 50 before it happens. Period. Not in the run up to it, not in arranging a referrendum on it, but literally a vote to trigger it. Like I said it's irrelevant whether it's "right or wrong", whether it seems like needless micromanagement, even whether it's something that should be changed in future... ... ... the fact it, it is currently there, on paper, that this needs to be the case.

Realistically, it's not going to stop the EU exit from happening. Look on it as a formality, even. But it's one that needs to happen because it is currently the law and - like I said - NO ONE should EVER be advocating for any government to selectively pick and choose when and where they feel like following the written letter of constitutional law. Whether you agree with what they're putting through or not. Setting a precedent that it's OK to sometimes just say "Nah that law is stupid, we'll do it anyway" is dangerous and undemocratic. I don't say this as a remain supporter... I only say it as someone who knows that giving the government a blank chequebook to ignore signed documents is sheer madness.



This is a completely different scenario. It doesn't relate in the slightest.

The legal case is a new development and since there is going to be an appeal it is not the letter of the law at this stage, it is a judgement by one court that might or might not be overturned. I don't think anyone is saying that the government shouldn't follow the law are they?

If we are going to micro manage every government action then my last para is very relevant. More relevant than this issue.

If this is upheld by the supreme Court, this will completely change any possibility of future referendum.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

The legal case is a new development and since there is going to be an appeal it is not the letter of the law at this stage, it is a judgement by one court that might or might not be overturned. I don't think anyone is saying that the government shouldn't follow the law are they?

If we are going to micro manage every government action then my last para is very relevant. More relevant than this issue.

If this is upheld by the supreme Court, this will completely change any possibility of future referendum.

It is the letter of the law. The high court ruling was them simply agreeing that it is, indeed, the letter of the law. I sincerely hope that the supreme court will do the same because - like I said - it's not ambiguous, or odd wording - it is quite clear if you read the document that is being referenced.

And it shouldn't have any bearing at all on future referenda. Other than that the terms and limitations of any referendum should be clearer from the outset. Which would only be a good thing, because this one was an absolute ****ing shambles by all accounts, whether you agree with the outcome or not.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It doesn't matter. There has to be a parliamentary vote on enacting something like Article 50 before it happens. Period. Not in the run up to it, not in arranging a referrendum on it, but literally a vote to trigger it. Like I said it's irrelevant whether it's "right or wrong", whether it seems like needless micromanagement, even whether it's something that should be changed in future... ... ... the fact it, it is currently there, on paper, that this needs to be the case.

Realistically, it's not going to stop the EU exit from happening. Look on it as a formality, even. But it's one that needs to happen because it is currently the law and - like I said - NO ONE should EVER be advocating for any government to selectively pick and choose when and where they feel like following the written letter of constitutional law. Whether you agree with what they're putting through or not. Setting a precedent that it's OK to sometimes just say "Nah that law is stupid, we'll do it anyway" is dangerous and undemocratic. I don't say this as a remain supporter... I only say it as someone who knows that giving the government a blank chequebook to ignore signed documents is sheer madness.



This is a completely different scenario. It doesn't relate in the slightest.

All of this!