About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

user104658 · 05-11-2016, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxie

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.

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.

jaxie · 05-11-2016, 05:10 PM

Quote:

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.

user104658 · 05-11-2016, 10:52 PM

Quote:

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.