[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is more or less the conclusion of the Judges who heard the arguments came to.
I agree with them and you too.

What astounds me is that any govt; not just this one, would actually want to proceed with leaving and triggering article 50, without a vote and hopeful support from MPs of all parties across the house of commons.

I really cannot see how that can be argued against legally and hopefully the Supreme court will not overturn the judgement made earlier this week.

Better to have the legalities out the way now.
Working together with all parties and MPs would have been a far better and likely smoother route to go down by the Govt.
In my view anyway.

No one - including Brexit supporters - should be clamouring for this or any other government to start picking and choosing when they would like to follow the letter of the law. It's an utterly ludicrous road to want to go down, in the name of "getting something you want" a little bit faster. Utterly insane.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No one - including Brexit supporters - should be clamouring for this or any other government to start picking and choosing when they would like to follow the letter of the law. It's an utterly ludicrous road to want to go down, in the name of "getting something you want" a little bit faster. Utterly insane.

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.

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?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Workers rights... I didn't call you an idiot why are you calling yourself an idiot?

For the umpteenth time whether we go or stay is not in question

What workers rights are those? What evidence can you show for how they have taken hundreds of years relating to the EU and how they are changing now?

I won't dignify the rest with a reply.

[iloveaisleyne]

Surely even people who voted remain can see that it is pretty unethical for us to stay in the EU after the majority ruled in favour of brexit?

[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.

[arista]

Yes TS it will go ahead


Feck the LibDems

[Northern Monkey]

Does anyone actually believe for one second that this multi millionaire Gina Miller who went to the courts did this because she believes in parliamentary democracy?
The same parliamentary democracy that the EU has spent the last forty years destroying.
The same woman who was quoted as saying she felt 'physically sick' at the result.
Yep that's why she's done it
She is trying her best to block Brexit or get parliament to water it down so much that it's not even really Brexit anymore.Imo.
These financial and political elites don't care what we think.They will stop at nothing to get their own way and forget what the people want.

[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.

[Mystic Mock]

It's a fair result.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by iloveaisleyne

Surely even people who voted remain can see that it is pretty unethical for us to stay in the EU after the majority ruled in favour of brexit?

You mean that slim 52%? There was still 48% that was opposed to the move which by the way is ALOT of people to say "no you're having the country massively overhauled in how it runs itself, but thanks for voting."

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

What workers rights are those? What evidence can you show for how they have taken hundreds of years relating to the EU and how they are changing now?

I won't dignify the rest with a reply.

There you go, educate yourself.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default...20the%20EU.pdf

[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!

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There you go, educate yourself.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default...20the%20EU.pdf

Oh goodie TUC propaganda. Did you know that Labour and the union's were opposed to the EU until Delores convinced them they could push their own agenda through the back door usong the EU without having to put it to the people? Oh the irony of that same party calling for transparency over Brexit.

Btw the link doesn't clarify the statement you made about hundreds of years of EU welfare rights being ripped apart by Brexit and the government. Perhaps you ought to educate yourself first.

How did the hundred of years come into an entity that only existed for 40? Who changed the welfare rights now? What rights have been changed now? What workers rights have been lost as a direct result of Brexit?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Oh goodie TUC propaganda. Did you know that Labour and the union's were opposed to the EU until Delores convinced them they could push their own agenda through the back door usong the EU without having to put it to the people? Oh the irony of that same party calling for transparency over Brexit.

Btw the link doesn't clarify the statement you made about hundreds of years of EU welfare being ripped apart by Credit and the government. Perhaps you ought to educate yourself first.

You asked what rights were specifially linked to the EU I provided you with said information, now you're being pedantic because you dislike the organisation from which I sourced said info?
They didn't make it up if that's what you're worried about, it's EU law.

ALL parties want transparency over brexit.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You asked what rights were specifially linked to the EU I provided you with said information, now you're being pedantic because you dislike the organisation from which I sourced said info?
They didn't make it up if that's what you're worried about, it's EU law.

ALL parties want transparency over brexit.

No you said that rights were being taken. I asked what rights when, you can't answer. Because it isn't true. If you read the TUC document yourself you'd see they state that we had many of these laws and welfares in place before the EU. The also conclude the EU employment rights in recent years isn't as good as in the past and that EU activities have reduced settlement.

How can you know rights and welfare laws that have come about since would not have come about anyway? You can't.

You misquote what I've said so often it makes responding tedious.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

No you said that rights were being taken. I asked what rights when, you can't answer. Because it isn't true. If you read the TUC document yourself you'd see they state that we had many of these laws and welfares in place before the EU.

How can you know others that have come about since would not have come about anyway? You can't.

Yes many not all, the working times directives are EU law specifically it is these that many MPs will be wanting to ensure are retained.

[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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes many not all, the working times directives are EU law specifically it is these that many MPs will be wanting to ensure are retained.

As I mentioned you have no way of knowing that we wouldn't have introduced those laws ourselves anyway. No one has said those laws will be changing unless they are scaremongering, though I can hope laws pertaining to the appearance of bananas and the taste of chocolate will be scrapped as they are ridiculous.

The EU directives force a shameful waste of food in a world where people are starving. It's so wrong to throw away foods that don't bend or straighten how the EU dictate they should.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

As I mentioned you have no way of knowing that we wouldn't have introduced those laws ourselves anyway. No one has said those laws will be changing unless they are scaremongering, though I can hope laws pertaining to the appearance of bananas and the taste of chocolate will be scrapped as they are ridiculous.

The EU directives force a shameful waste of food in a world where people are starving. It's so wrong to throw away foods that don't bend or straighten how the EU dictate they should.

Well you can play hypotheticals on your own, it's facts that are important here.
We didn't make those laws and once we brexit we won't have them.
It's not scaremongering to voice how important they are to the UK workforce.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well you can play hypotheticals on your own, it's facts that are important here.
We didn't make those laws and once we brexit we won't have them.
It's not scaremongering to voice how important they are to the UK workforce.

You are being hypothetical since you can't produce one fact that any of these laws are suddenly being revoked. You say facts are important and never produce any.

Ill ask you again and hope for a straight answer. Why won't we have the laws when we brexited? Who told you we wouldn't? Where did this 'fact' come from?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You are being hypothetical since you can't produce one fact that any of these laws are suddenly being revoked. You say facts are important and never produce any.

Ill ask you again and hope for a straight answer. Why won't we have the laws when we brexited? Who told you we wouldn't? Where did this 'fact' come from?

If they are specifically EU law and we are no longer in the EU then by definition we don't have to abide by those laws do we?

UNLESS we retain them as is into our legislature, or write our own.
Again assurances that this will be the case will be sought I'm sure by our representatives.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If they are specifically EU law and we are no longer in the EU then by definition we don't have to abide by those laws do we?

UNLESS we retain them as is into our legislature, or write our own.
Again assurances that this will be the case will be sought I'm sure by our representatives.

What you think because we leave the EU 40 years worth of laws will be scrapped at the drop of the hat when it's already been said nothing would change immediately, and anything that did change later would have to go through parliament and probably the house of Lords? How on earth would any UK government just scrap a bunch of rights laws and get away with it? We will probably retain a lot of the law we've attained in our time in the EU, most of it was passed into UK law and there is a process for changing those laws. We aren't moving to the planet zardoz as slaves to the big head when we leave the EU. (Reference to a very strange Sean Connery film I once saw on TV). I really don't know where you get this idea from.

[iloveaisleyne]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

You mean that slim 52%? There was still 48% that was opposed to the move which by the way is ALOT of people to say "no you're having the country massively overhauled in how it runs itself, but thanks for voting."

4% is quite a decent amount of people when you consider the entire population of the country though

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

What you think because we leave the EU 40 years worth of laws will be scrapped at the drop of the hat when it's already been said nothing would change immediately, and anything that did change later would have to go through parliament and probably the house of Lords? How on earth would any UK government just scrap a bunch of rights laws and get away with it? We will probably retain a lot of the law we've attained in our time in the EU, most of it was passed into UK law and there is a process for changing those laws. We aren't moving to the planet zardoz as slaves to the big head when we leave the EU. (Reference to a very strange Sean Connery film I once saw on TV). I really don't know where you get this idea from.

What's been said? Nothing's been said other than 'brexit means brexit' and it will be 'titanic' ... Well, no argument from me there.
Other than that we know nada.

Would I put it past them to do that, scrap the lot? hell no!

You went off on a tangent again, the crux being I think you trust them to protect those rights, I do not.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What's been said? Nothing's been said other than 'brexit means brexit' and it will be 'titanic' ... Well, no argument from me there.
Other than that we know nada.

Would I put it past them to do that, scrap the lot? hell no!

You went off on a tangent again, the crux being I think you trust them to protect those rights, I do not.

It was in the press and the news, I can't remember who said now but it was something along the lines that all laws would remain as they are for the foreseeable future. I'm sure you can Google it.

I don't trust any political party but I know realistically what you are suggesting isn't going to happen. I'm sure some changes might be attempted as all political parties have their own agenda but ultimately the government has had to U turn before if people are unhappy with the proposed change. Also you seem to forget that they are answerable to the people. Here is an article that should make you feel less worried.

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/...loyment-rights

Did you know it was a labour government that introduced university fees? University used to be free.