FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will lose because the legal profession will lose millions and a lot of jobs if and when we live Europe it is in there interest to try to stop Brexit." 
Like that's the reason! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will lose because the legal profession will lose millions and a lot of jobs if and when we live Europe it is in there interest to try to stop Brexit." It is not about stopping brexit it's about the mechanism by which brexit will happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will lose because the legal profession will lose millions and a lot of jobs if and when we live Europe it is in there interest to try to stop Brexit.
Like that's the reason!"Do they need another? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will lose because the legal profession will lose millions and a lot of jobs if and when we live Europe it is in there interest to try to stop Brexit. It is not about stopping brexit it's about the mechanism by which brexit will happen." A typical lawyers play on words they do not fool me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Brexit is going to happen the sooner the Remoaners get used to it the better.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say "No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The decision on Tuesday really is irrelevant. If the Supreme court rule that the govenment can use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 then the government will use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 before March 31st and we can get on with Brexit and enter into negotiations with the EU. On the other hand if the Supreme court rule that the government must have a vote in Parliament to trigger article 50 then the government will have a vote in Parliament and Parliament will vote for it, then we can trigger article 50 before March 31st. The Tories have a majority and will be whipped to vote for it, and the Labour party have publically said they will vote for article 50 and they won't try to block it. The Ukip MP Douglas Carswell will also vote for it, and the DUP will also vote for it. The only ones who will vote against article 50 are the 9 Lib dem MP's and the 50 odd SNP MP's so they are hopelessly outnumbered. Parliament already had a vote on article 50 in December in principle and it was voted for with a good majority. Gina Miller has wasted millions on this court case, her attempts to block Brexit or slow down Brexit have been thwarted.
Brexit is going to happen the sooner the Remoaners get used to it the better. "I have already withdrawn my SNP membership and have walked away from the SNP due to their statement and actions on how they will vote against article 50 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will the government will or lose come Tuesday? Will the SC find that the PM tried to act unconstitutionally? " err how could the PM have tried to act unconstitutionally if it's taken weeks for SC judges to decide what needs to be done? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully. "Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'? -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt"Not enough I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt""Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say "This statement is an 'alternative fact'. The Supreme court has not given its decision yet so no one can say Scotland will have the final say. The real facts will only become clear after the Supreme court has given its decision tomorrow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off."We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same. In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt"So in your world 'likely' is a fact? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt
So in your world 'likely' is a fact?"No. 'Likely' means 'likely' look it up. Not definite but very probable. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt". I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal". Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same. In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts. -Matt So in your world 'likely' is a fact?" That's so twisted out of context to try and belittle his argument it's laughable  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same. In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts. -Matt So in your world 'likely' is a fact? That's so twisted out of context to try and belittle his argument it's laughable "really? So what are the facts? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!"The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million pounds of taxpayers money clearly stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks that the referendum was advisory and the result of it would be ignored by government is being naive in the extreme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!
The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million pounds of taxpayers money clearly stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks that the referendum was advisory and the result of it would be ignored by government is being naive in the extreme. "
Or just undemocratic.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!
The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million pounds of taxpayers money clearly stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks that the referendum was advisory and the result of it would be ignored by government is being naive in the extreme. "Or they simple can read the Referendum Act? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!"I've never said anything about going against the referendum decision. I'm just trying to work out how supposedly "moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off" bears any resemblance to reality? The rules have been set out at the start, and the government is being held (despite it trying to circumvent them) to follow them as it should. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!
The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million pounds of taxpayers money clearly stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks that the referendum was advisory and the result of it would be ignored by government is being naive in the extreme. "Sorry, I must have missed the bit in the leaflet where it said "And we will run roughshod over our established parliamentary democracy and attempt to set a precedent of using royal prerogative to bypass the bits of our constitution that we do not like." You want to go ahead and believe the bits you want, go ahead. Feel free to ignore the Tory party manifesto in which it said it would "safeguard British interests in the single market". Or the bit where they said they would trigger Article 50 the day after. Or any other bits you think are inconvenient to your viewpoint. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never said anything about going against the referendum decision. I'm just trying to work out how supposedly "moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off" bears any resemblance to reality? The rules have been set out at the start, and the government is being held (despite it trying to circumvent them) to follow them as it should. -Matt" . No I wasn't insinuating you were. I was in fact taking in a more general sense on this well used advisory narrative, it's misleading and would be imho better described as non legal, parliament isn't asking the public for advise on the issue, there asking them to make the decision for them (rightly or wrongly) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never said anything about going against the referendum decision. I'm just trying to work out how supposedly "moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off" bears any resemblance to reality? The rules have been set out at the start, and the government is being held (despite it trying to circumvent them) to follow them as it should. -Matt. No I wasn't insinuating you were. I was in fact taking in a more general sense on this well used advisory narrative, it's misleading and would be imho better described as non legal, parliament isn't asking the public for advise on the issue, there asking them to make the decision for them (rightly or wrongly)" Well this is the text taken verbatim from the House of Commons briefing paper on the Referendum: " It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution." Then the High Court also stated, in it's judgement “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. So, I think 'advisory' is a pretty apt description of it. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it" Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
.
.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt". Funnily enough I've read it?. If Were getting into a war on wording then I would ask are parliament a bunch of incompetent idiots?. I ask that because what bunch of legislators would ask the advice of 60 million people who know next to nothing on the subject to be influenced by?. They are despite what's worded by them clearly not asking for advice, they are in effect asking somebody else to make the decision for them (again rightly or wrongly). If there genuinely seeking the advise of 60 million idiots on the subject for which they will be influenced by.... Then things are far worse than i feared.... And I motion for a quick return to Mr catesbys solution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
"Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding. "oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
"If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt"do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them? And why would this set a dangerous precedent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking the people what they want and carrying out their wishes is a dangerous precedent? I can't get my head round that one "They are not carrying out the people's wishes, especially when you're ignoring the wish of the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking the people what they want and carrying out their wishes is a dangerous precedent? I can't get my head round that one
They are not carrying out the people's wishes, especially when you're ignoring the wish of the rest."
ooh dear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking the people what they want and carrying out their wishes is a dangerous precedent? I can't get my head round that one
They are not carrying out the people's wishes, especially when you're ignoring the wish of the rest.
ooh dear"Haha I never thought I would say that. Bringing Netherlands back. Even though the people want Gilders to lead, according to the polls. But the will of the rest of the people can prevent him being prime minister. That I believe is true democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking the people what they want and carrying out their wishes is a dangerous precedent? I can't get my head round that one
They are not carrying out the people's wishes, especially when you're ignoring the wish of the rest.
ooh dear
Haha I never thought I would say that.
Bringing Netherlands back. Even though the people want Gilders to lead, according to the polls. But the will of the rest of the people can prevent him being prime minister. That I believe is true democracy. "In fact it's true in the UK. But a coalition is rare there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt
do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them?
And why would this set a dangerous precedent?"Yes, I voted. The government deciding that parliament is not actually sovereign and that they can overrule it using royal prerogative when it suits them is a dangerous precedent. We have parliamentary sovereignty. As a nation we made that quite clear when we beheaded the king in 1649. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt
do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them?
And why would this set a dangerous precedent?
Yes, I voted.
The government deciding that parliament is not actually sovereign and that they can overrule it using royal prerogative when it suits them is a dangerous precedent. We have parliamentary sovereignty. As a nation we made that quite clear when we beheaded the king in 1649.
-Matt"the government are not saying parliament isn't sovereign but parliament has already had a vote on this. If the government wanted to take us out of the EU why didn't they try to do it without a referendum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt
do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them?
And why would this set a dangerous precedent?
Yes, I voted.
The government deciding that parliament is not actually sovereign and that they can overrule it using royal prerogative when it suits them is a dangerous precedent. We have parliamentary sovereignty. As a nation we made that quite clear when we beheaded the king in 1649.
-Matt
the government are not saying parliament isn't sovereign but parliament has already had a vote on this. If the government wanted to take us out of the EU why didn't they try to do it without a referendum?"Because they had promised the people a referendum and they knew it would be political suicide to not then do it. However they didn't actually think that leave would win, so they 1) didn't bother to make any plans if they did and 2) didn't think they needed to make it legally binding as it wasn't going to win anyway. And no, parliament has not yet actually had any legislation put to it to take the UK out of the EU. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt
do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them?
And why would this set a dangerous precedent?
Yes, I voted.
The government deciding that parliament is not actually sovereign and that they can overrule it using royal prerogative when it suits them is a dangerous precedent. We have parliamentary sovereignty. As a nation we made that quite clear when we beheaded the king in 1649.
-Matt"That would be the parliamentary sovereignty you want to destroy by keeping us in the EU then, where the EU has the ability to over ride our Parliamentary sovereignty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt"You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For fucks sake, the government then and now have overplayed their authority. They should have been saying 'will seek to' etc etc. Usually governments have a majority and get their way so a bit of arrogance creeps in. But parliament is sovereign. We fought a civil war about it. You fought a referendum on it. Supposedly. " As Tony Benn used to say when he was alive, the EU will ultimately destroy our parliamentary sovereignty if we stay in the EU. Boris Johnson asked David Cameron a straight question in the house of commons during the referendum...."is this house sovereign? ". David Cameron couldn't give a straight answer because he knew the EU was undermining our Parliamentary sovereignty and was chipping away at it piece by piece. The EU would have destroyed our parliamentary sovereignty had we stayed a member. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt
You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum. "I was referring to the Referendum Bill and the related Parliamentary briefing. That I quoted above. You know, the actual bill. The thing that went to parliament. The thing that the parliament and house of lords overwhelmingly voted in favour of. The thing that states that the referendum is non-binding. I'm not referring to the propaganda put out during the campaign. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt
You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum.
I was referring to the Referendum Bill and the related Parliamentary briefing. That I quoted above. You know, the actual bill. The thing that went to parliament. The thing that the parliament and house of lords overwhelmingly voted in favour of. The thing that states that the referendum is non-binding. I'm not referring to the propaganda put out during the campaign.
-Matt"The official government leaflet put out during the referendum was your own Propaganda. It supported the Remain campaign in case you forgot the government position was to Remain. The government said in it they would implement the result of the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will lose because the legal profession will lose millions and a lot of jobs if and when we live Europe it is in there interest to try to stop Brexit. It is not about stopping brexit it's about the mechanism by which brexit will happen." You believe that you will believe anything,and pigs fly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will lose because the legal profession will lose millions and a lot of jobs if and when we live Europe it is in there interest to try to stop Brexit. It is not about stopping brexit it's about the mechanism by which brexit will happen.You believe that you will believe anything,and pigs fly" I thought they did already ,in a lot of remainders eyes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt
You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum.
I was referring to the Referendum Bill and the related Parliamentary briefing. That I quoted above. You know, the actual bill. The thing that went to parliament. The thing that the parliament and house of lords overwhelmingly voted in favour of. The thing that states that the referendum is non-binding. I'm not referring to the propaganda put out during the campaign.
-Matt
The official government leaflet put out during the referendum was your own Propaganda. It supported the Remain campaign in case you forgot the government position was to Remain. The government said in it they would implement the result of the referendum. ".......if Parliament gives its assent. For fucks sake. We elect 650 MPs. We don't just elect the 30 odd who make up the cabinet. As for the government leaflet, which had nothing to do with labour or the lib dems, it was one half of a lying Tory party against the other half of the lying Tory party and ukip. If we are talking about documents on which a mandate is based, the Tory manifesto on which Cameron and May were elected pledged not only to hold a referendum and to implement the results but to keep us in the single market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt
You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum.
I was referring to the Referendum Bill and the related Parliamentary briefing. That I quoted above. You know, the actual bill. The thing that went to parliament. The thing that the parliament and house of lords overwhelmingly voted in favour of. The thing that states that the referendum is non-binding. I'm not referring to the propaganda put out during the campaign.
-Matt
The official government leaflet put out during the referendum was your own Propaganda. It supported the Remain campaign in case you forgot the government position was to Remain. The government said in it they would implement the result of the referendum. "Wasn't 'my' propaganda. I didn't vote Tory. Slimy, lying bastards whom I couldn't trust any further than I could throw. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt
You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum.
I was referring to the Referendum Bill and the related Parliamentary briefing. That I quoted above. You know, the actual bill. The thing that went to parliament. The thing that the parliament and house of lords overwhelmingly voted in favour of. The thing that states that the referendum is non-binding. I'm not referring to the propaganda put out during the campaign.
-Matt
The official government leaflet put out during the referendum was your own Propaganda. It supported the Remain campaign in case you forgot the government position was to Remain. The government said in it they would implement the result of the referendum.
Wasn't 'my' propaganda. I didn't vote Tory. Slimy, lying bastards whom I couldn't trust any further than I could throw.
-Matt "All MPs not just the Tory's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't 'my' propaganda. I didn't vote Tory. Slimy, lying bastards whom I couldn't trust any further than I could throw. -Matt " And you trust Labour?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't 'my' propaganda. I didn't vote Tory. Slimy, lying bastards whom I couldn't trust any further than I could throw. -Matt And you trust Labour? "Lesser of two evils lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt"
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt
"Let's respect the decision | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt" were the 3 who found for the government wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong?" The other 8 thought so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could have been a lot worse. They found that the British parliament was responsible for the devolved parliaments ie.Scotland Northern Ireland." Oh my, Ms Sturgeon has just choked on her cornflakes!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? The other 8 thought so." so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? The other 8 thought so. so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action?" Are you wanting them labelled as enemies of the State? Do you want them hung drawn and quartered? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong?" How do you define "wrong"? They are independent judges that reach their own ruling of the matter in hand. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? The other 8 thought so. so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action?" You think supreme court judges should face disciplinary action if they come a decision you don't like?! What kind of fucked up world do you want to live in? -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? The other 8 thought so. so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action? You think supreme court judges should face disciplinary action if they come a decision you don't like?! What kind of fucked up world do you want to live in? -Matt" I meant the 3 who voted for the government | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong?" No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? The other 8 thought so. so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action? You think supreme court judges should face disciplinary action if they come a decision you don't like?! What kind of fucked up world do you want to live in? -Matt I meant the 3 who voted for the government "I know who you mean. Again, why do you think judges should face disciplinary action for doing their job? -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. " We have an uncodified constitution, not an unwritten constitution. For example the judgement today forms part of the constitution, and it has been written down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. " true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the Daily Mail can manage not to stir up hate against the judges this time. " I doubt it. My guess is they will call 3 heroes and 8 enemies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution" The government were doing something wrong... or about to. That is why the High Court ruled they could not do it. They appealed it. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court that the government could not take us out of the EU without an act of parliament. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution" This is what the Supreme Court said: “...Any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by an act of Parliament, to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6YcixV_0Sc 5min30 for specific section. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution" They were going against the constitution; the court has said so. By a majority. It obviously wouldn't have "just as easily" have gone the other way; the majority shows that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution" Had the appellant lost then yes the government would have been in the right but given the pretty clear judgement then May was wrong in that she thought she could bypass Parliament.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I meant the 3 who voted for the government "I can't believe that some leavers are still complaining about uk decisions about U.K. Law being left to U.K. Judges... I thought that's what they wanted? Just be thankful that the devolved governments don't get the right to stop the process... and hopefully the government honour the spirit of the decision and give a full substantive bill where amendments can be tabled rather than just a one paragraph statement Personally I don't see why parliament gets to vote on the final bill but the people don't... but that may end up being a tabled amendment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I meant the 3 who voted for the government
I can't believe that some leavers are still complaining about uk decisions about U.K. Law being left to U.K. Judges... I thought that's what they wanted?
Just be thankful that the devolved governments don't get the right to stop the process... and hopefully the government honour the spirit of the decision and give a full substantive bill where amendments can be tabled rather than just a one paragraph statement
Personally I don't see why parliament gets to vote on the final bill but the people don't... but that may end up being a tabled amendment "I'm not moaning. Due process has been done and it now sets a precedent for the future. It's how we go from here that is of more interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action?" I have just spent an hour reading the judgement before commenting, you would do well to do similar before passing comments like the one above! Paragraphs 34 and 35 make it clear why the only people attempting to subvert our constitution were the government. Those 2 paragraphs set out the legal principals that removed the right of the government to use the Royal Prerogative. You can read the whole judgement or the press release here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html However to save you the effort the basic principle is a ministers stated intention to place a bill before parliament does not have any legal standing. A court cannot pass judgements on the basis that a statute will be enacted. There is lots more, case law, arguments, counter arguments, stuff about the referendum acts. you may also like to read para 50 to 59 as well as the press release. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the Daily Mail can manage not to stir up hate against the judges this time. I doubt it. My guess is they will call 3 heroes and 8 enemies" Daily Mail online current headline: "Yet again the elite show their contempt for Brexit voters! Supreme Court rules Theresa May CANNOT trigger Britain's departure from the EU without MPs' approval... as Remain campaigners gloat" Daily Express: "Supreme Court judges thwart will of 17M Britons! May CAN'T trigger Brexit without MPs vote" -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action? I have just spent an hour reading the judgement before commenting, you would do well to do similar before passing comments like the one above! Paragraphs 34 and 35 make it clear why the only people attempting to subvert our constitution were the government. Those 2 paragraphs set out the legal principals that removed the right of the government to use the Royal Prerogative. You can read the whole judgement or the press release here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html However to save you the effort the basic principle is a ministers stated intention to place a bill before parliament does not have any legal standing. A court cannot pass judgements on the basis that a statute will be enacted. There is lots more, case law, arguments, counter arguments, stuff about the referendum acts. you may also like to read para 50 to 59 as well as the press release." I'm glad that a ruling has been made. I've not yet had a chance to read the ruling, but just heard a BBC commentator read some of it that said part of the reasoning behind the ruling was something to do with the fact that EU law overrides UK law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"but just heard a BBC commentator read some of it that said part of the reasoning behind the ruling was something to do with the fact that EU law overrides UK law?" Not quite... they said that because it look an act of parliament under U.K. Law to take us in... it would also require an act of parliament to take us out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually 3 lib dem MP's might vote for triggering Article 50. I'm pretty sure the Norfolk one will. Labour support does depend on the plan safeguarding a number of things such as workers rights. Even so at least 50 will vote against triggering Article 50 even now. There will be a few Tories voting against it too. Ken Clarke for one. There are other court cases too which may delay things further and also allow a final opportunity to reverse Article 50 in 2 years time following a second referendum. In two more months people might just be feeling the pinch. The Politicians, most of whom were Remainers, may then be emboldened by apparent changes in public opinion. Also, as people look at Trump the idea that change is such a good thing might make them rethink. " People look at Trump and think change is good? Trump today announced a gagging order on any organisation that deals with abortion. Doesn't matter if your Pro or Against abortion he's killing the idea of free speech you WILL do what he say's cause if you don't agree with him keep your mouth shut. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say "Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit. "Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now. Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998. “2 The Sewel convention In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add— “(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit. "Not so quick... LoL First there needs to be a green paper... Then a white paper... That must then be introduced to one of the houses as a bill for its first reading... Then there is the second reading... Then it goes to the committee stage Where first a committee must be selected, but as this is such an important bill I expect it will require a committee of the full house... Then the committee must examine the bill in detail... Then the committee must report back to the house (its called the report stage funnily enough)... Then there is the third reading of the bill... Then the bill passes to the other house for first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading... It then goes back to the first house for any amendments and alterations to be considered... If amendments are rejected it returns to the amending house for reconsideration and re-amendment... Then back to the first house etc. until both houses agree or the commons uses its powers to force the bill through. Only then does it go forward for the Royal Accent. Now considering that all takes parliamentary time and that is in short supply and it is now the end of January and Ms May has said she intends to trigger article 50 before the end of March I think she may be missing that deadline... Of course April is budget month and the budget comes first as the law requires the government to pass annual budget legalisation and failure to do so will trigger a financial crisis and general election I'm guessing we are looking at June as the earliest that it may be possible to trigger article 50. One way or another the governments legislative timetable has just gone out the window! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They'll never be a hard border in Ireland again.... We'll just blow them up if they do "I realise that was said tongue in cheek but where is the precedent to have an open border with one country in and one country out of the European customs union? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
"Here we go again. 1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here 2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron? 3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we. A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum? B) did the UK vote to leave? C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK? E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions? F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They'll never be a hard border in Ireland again.... We'll just blow them up if they do
I realise that was said tongue in cheek but where is the precedent to have an open border with one country in and one country out of the European customs union?"Yep.....can't happen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There will be a hard border, there has to be but I am not sure its will be between NI and the Rep. Would be too difficult to implement. Would probably be more of a visual signage and the actual border more between NI and the mainland. its the only real possibility. " And there is the rub... A hard border means a return to sectarian violence. If the border is between the Republic and NI then the Nationalists will kick off. If it is between NI and the mainland the Unionists will be the ones to restart 'the troubles'. One way or another brexit is going to be the gift that just keeps giving... And all because 3 tory posh boys couldn't agree who was going to have the top job and a posh boy city banker didn't like the EU restricting the tory deregulation of the banks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
"B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain. C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ? D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries. E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide. I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants. Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
"As someone who can think for themselves when it to the vote for Scottish Independence and the EU vote vote rather than listen the same old rubbish from both sides vote for and the streets will be paved with gold or vote for them and we'll all be living in the victorian work houses again some of the facts you make i personally agree with but on the question on could Scotland be independent of all the answers i heard both side saying leading up to the vote was made by a MP from a party i have never ever voted for but always liked listening to because she didn't just spout the same party line was Anabelle Gouldie who used to be the leader of the Scottish Conservatives and anti Independence answered Yes but i still think Scotland should be part of the UK. As for that old rubbish statement that the rest of the UK pay's to keep Scotland going i have always if Scotland is such a drain on the UK finances why the hell do you think so many political parties are desperate for it not to break away? As for your other points the Scottish MP'S will NOT have the last say on Brexit the people of Scotland do not want another Indy vote and this is coming from a SNP voter who has never been a sheep and toe'd any party line but thinks what the people want and in any vote believes the majority wins even if it's the opposite of what i voted. Sadly in the UK the majority vote means nothing to lot's of people they want what they want and they don't care about anything else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Not so quick... LoL
First there needs to be a green paper...
Then a white paper...
That must then be introduced to one of the houses as a bill for its first reading...
Then there is the second reading...
Then it goes to the committee stage
Where first a committee must be selected, but as this is such an important bill I expect it will require a committee of the full house...
Then the committee must examine the bill in detail...
Then the committee must report back to the house (its called the report stage funnily enough)...
Then there is the third reading of the bill...
Then the bill passes to the other house for first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading...
It then goes back to the first house for any amendments and alterations to be considered...
If amendments are rejected it returns to the amending house for reconsideration and re-amendment...
Then back to the first house etc. until both houses agree or the commons uses its powers to force the bill through.
Only then does it go forward for the Royal Accent.
Now considering that all takes parliamentary time and that is in short supply and it is now the end of January and Ms May has said she intends to trigger article 50 before the end of March I think she may be missing that deadline...
Of course April is budget month and the budget comes first as the law requires the government to pass annual budget legalisation and failure to do so will trigger a financial crisis and general election I'm guessing we are looking at June as the earliest that it may be possible to trigger article 50.
One way or another the governments legislative timetable has just gone out the window!
"Funny then that David Davis and the government have said they are still on track to trigger article 50 before March 31st. No doubt in my mind Parliament will vote with a majority to trigger it, just like they did in December. Nothing has changed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Not so quick... LoL
First there needs to be a green paper...
Then a white paper...
That must then be introduced to one of the houses as a bill for its first reading...
Then there is the second reading...
Then it goes to the committee stage
Where first a committee must be selected, but as this is such an important bill I expect it will require a committee of the full house...
Then the committee must examine the bill in detail...
Then the committee must report back to the house (its called the report stage funnily enough)...
Then there is the third reading of the bill...
Then the bill passes to the other house for first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading...
It then goes back to the first house for any amendments and alterations to be considered...
If amendments are rejected it returns to the amending house for reconsideration and re-amendment...
Then back to the first house etc. until both houses agree or the commons uses its powers to force the bill through.
Only then does it go forward for the Royal Accent.
Now considering that all takes parliamentary time and that is in short supply and it is now the end of January and Ms May has said she intends to trigger article 50 before the end of March I think she may be missing that deadline...
Of course April is budget month and the budget comes first as the law requires the government to pass annual budget legalisation and failure to do so will trigger a financial crisis and general election I'm guessing we are looking at June as the earliest that it may be possible to trigger article 50.
One way or another the governments legislative timetable has just gone out the window!
Funny then that David Davis and the government have said they are still on track to trigger article 50 before March 31st. No doubt in my mind Parliament will vote with a majority to trigger it, just like they did in December. Nothing has changed. ".. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain.
C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ?
D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries.
E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU
F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide.
I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants.
Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit "E - An elected member of the Spanish government said on an episode of Newsnight on the BBC during the Scottish indy referendum that Spain would use its veto in the European Parliament to block any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. Spain simply won't risk Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalonia case for independence in Spain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain.
C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ?
D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries.
E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU
F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide.
I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants.
Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit
E - An elected member of the Spanish government said on an episode of Newsnight on the BBC during the Scottish indy referendum that Spain would use its veto in the European Parliament to block any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. Spain simply won't risk Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalonia case for independence in Spain. "It is true that Spain doesn't want to open the Catalonia can of worms; Especially as it also has the possibility ( a big possibility) of reclaiming Gibraltar after BREXIT. Legally, whilst the UK is in the EU it can make no official claims at all. After BREXIT it can legitimately make its claim. And will. However " an elected member said" means nothing; zero; zilch ; it's what the government says which matters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain.
C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ?
D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries.
E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU
F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide.
I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants.
Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit
E - An elected member of the Spanish government said on an episode of Newsnight on the BBC during the Scottish indy referendum that Spain would use its veto in the European Parliament to block any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. Spain simply won't risk Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalonia case for independence in Spain. "Agree 100% Sir always said even if Scotland was to beak away from the rest of the UK they would not automatically become members of the EU maybe 10 or twenty years down the line but her now tomorrow no chance but alas it's the old story people cherry picking facts to make there side of the argument sound better. It's lie peoples view on what should be included in the Brexit negotiations some think it's just a case of going in and saying right we're going to do this and all you other countries are going to this, the exact thing they would be complaining about if it was another country leaving the EU and we were staying. Never ever look at ALL the facts just mention the ones that suit you. Yes Scotland does a lot of business with the EU and leaving the EU will affect economy that's why the majority voted to Remain but they do not want another Indy the only people who want another vote is the people who have been shouting about another vote on leaving the EU. The majority has decided let's start thinking about how we're going to help make this country we say we are proud of better instead of complaining we're not getting everything our own way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain.
C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ?
D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries.
E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU
F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide.
I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants.
Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit
E - An elected member of the Spanish government said on an episode of Newsnight on the BBC during the Scottish indy referendum that Spain would use its veto in the European Parliament to block any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. Spain simply won't risk Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalonia case for independence in Spain. "Has Spain PM came out and said he will veto an independent Scotland being in the EU ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain.
C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ?
D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries.
E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU
F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide.
I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants.
Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit
E - An elected member of the Spanish government said on an episode of Newsnight on the BBC during the Scottish indy referendum that Spain would use its veto in the European Parliament to block any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. Spain simply won't risk Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalonia case for independence in Spain.
It is true that Spain doesn't want to open the Catalonia can of worms;
Especially as it also has the possibility ( a big possibility) of reclaiming Gibraltar after BREXIT. Legally, whilst the UK is in the EU it can make no official claims at all. After BREXIT it can legitimately make its claim. And will.
However " an elected member said" means nothing; zero; zilch ; it's what the government says which matters.
"An elected member of the Spanish government was there as a government representative. He was making clear the Spanish government position on Scotland joining the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
B) did the UK vote to leave?
C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person
D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK?
E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occassions?
F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about scotlands independence as it would infact have an impact on us all?
B - Nope the UK did not vote to leave England and Wales voted to leave and Scotland and N.Irland voted to remain.
C- If that were true then if Scotland leeches off the rest of the UK why then does Westminster want to keep ahold of Scotland ?
D- Yes , Norway , and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine and they have round about the same number of people in their countries.
E- This Spain thing is getting boring now - If Scotland were to become independent it would only need a majority of EU countries. Also no one as of yet as showing me where Spain PM has said he would veto Scotland being in the EU
F- No a Scottish independence referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide.
I respect England wishes to leave the EU if thats what they want. But Scotland is a country and must be allowed to decide on what it wants.
Today is gone a long way to prove Westminster dont care about Scotland and the Scotland act has been all bullshit
E - An elected member of the Spanish government said on an episode of Newsnight on the BBC during the Scottish indy referendum that Spain would use its veto in the European Parliament to block any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. Spain simply won't risk Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalonia case for independence in Spain.
It is true that Spain doesn't want to open the Catalonia can of worms;
Especially as it also has the possibility ( a big possibility) of reclaiming Gibraltar after BREXIT. Legally, whilst the UK is in the EU it can make no official claims at all. After BREXIT it can legitimately make its claim. And will.
However " an elected member said" means nothing; zero; zilch ; it's what the government says which matters.
An elected member of the Spanish government was there as a government representative. He was making clear the Spanish government position on Scotland joining the EU. "So Spain PM has not said he would veto an independent Scotland ? Also do you know the PM's party is a minority administration in Spain, it requires the support of other parties in order to pass any laws. Out of interest who was this elected member you are on about ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny then that David Davis and the government have said they are still on track to trigger article 50 before March 31st. No doubt in my mind Parliament will vote with a majority to trigger it, just like they did in December. Nothing has changed. "Well would you expect him to say anything else? For the past few months the government have been saying that they were right and the high court wrong, although it would have taken a complete idiot or someone so invested in brexit that they could not accept the realities of the situation to not understand that parliament had to have the final say. No doubt now Ms May and co. will try and force a single line bill through the house that will result in a parliamentary revolt and more legal challenges rather than accept that a full bill addressing all issues is required. Of course when that fails it will not be Ms May's authoritarian style that is at fault it will be parliament. But what do I know, I don't have a crystal ball now just like I didn't have one before the referendum when I was saying that regardless of what anyone said parliament would have the final say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An elected member of the Spanish government was there as a government representative. He was making clear the Spanish government position on Scotland joining the EU. " That was when the Scottish plan was to leave the UK and then join the EU as an independent member. If you remember the in campaign said Scotland could not leave the UK (an EU member) and remain in the EU, that a vote to leave the UK was a vote to leave the EU. Scotland has now voted twice to remain in the EU but is now being forced out against its will. So the situation has changed, and I am willing to bet a penny to a pound that if Scotland now votes to leave the UK in favour of the EU the EU will accept them with open arms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An elected member of the Spanish government was there as a government representative. He was making clear the Spanish government position on Scotland joining the EU. That was when the Scottish plan was to leave the UK and then join the EU as an independent member. If you remember the in campaign said Scotland could not leave the UK (an EU member) and remain in the EU, that a vote to leave the UK was a vote to leave the EU. Scotland has now voted twice to remain in the EU but is now being forced out against its will. So the situation has changed, and I am willing to bet a penny to a pound that if Scotland now votes to leave the UK in favour of the EU the EU will accept them with open arms." I'll take that bet. They don't meet the requirements. I've asked this before, what currency would they use? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many English ppl wished Scotland ad voted to leave the uk when they ad the chance we don't here the whinging from the Wales and Northern Ireland like we do the scots " Interesting reply when i said in a earlier post that why was it so many political parties wanted to hold onto Scotland and nobody answered that simple question. You WILL here winging fro the Welsh in a couple of years time i can promise you because i can understand people voting to leave the EU because say there was a lot of immigration in there area and they thought they were getting special treatment but Wales does not have a immigration problem Wales actually pay's less to the EU than they receive in regeneration grants. So where's all this regeneration money going to came from when we leave the EU. P.S Laughed so many times over so many years listening to literally 100,000 people making that old statement 'What's Scotland going to do when the oil runs out' not one of them had the intelligence to think 'what does the UK do when the oil runs out'. As i said a country now full of people who cherry pick the facts and no matter if your Scottish English Welsh or Irish voted to Remain or Leave the EU they will always put themselves what they want before this country. When did you ever hear anyone OFFER to do something themselves to help the NHS and the people that are suffering through the lack of services YOU WON'T there too busy thinking of someone to blame. It's been suggested many times over the years by different politicians that a penny should be put on income tax for the NHS do people want pay it NO there too busy spending that money on lottery tickets cause they might win million. In life words mean nothing only actions count. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many English ppl wished Scotland ad voted to leave the uk when they ad the chance we don't here the whinging from the Wales and Northern Ireland like we do the scots Interesting reply when i said in a earlier post that why was it so many political parties wanted to hold onto Scotland and nobody answered that simple question. You WILL here winging fro the Welsh in a couple of years time i can promise you because i can understand people voting to leave the EU because say there was a lot of immigration in there area and they thought they were getting special treatment but Wales does not have a immigration problem Wales actually pay's less to the EU than they receive in regeneration grants. So where's all this regeneration money going to came from when we leave the EU. P.S Laughed so many times over so many years listening to literally 100,000 people making that old statement 'What's Scotland going to do when the oil runs out' not one of them had the intelligence to think 'what does the UK do when the oil runs out'. As i said a country now full of people who cherry pick the facts and no matter if your Scottish English Welsh or Irish voted to Remain or Leave the EU they will always put themselves what they want before this country. When did you ever hear anyone OFFER to do something themselves to help the NHS and the people that are suffering through the lack of services YOU WON'T there too busy thinking of someone to blame. It's been suggested many times over the years by different politicians that a penny should be put on income tax for the NHS do people want pay it NO there too busy spending that money on lottery tickets cause they might win million. In life words mean nothing only actions count." Why did Ms Sturgeon refuse to up income tax? She was always a big advocate of a tax rise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Not so quick... LoL
First there needs to be a green paper...
Then a white paper...
That must then be introduced to one of the houses as a bill for its first reading...
Then there is the second reading...
Then it goes to the committee stage
Where first a committee must be selected, but as this is such an important bill I expect it will require a committee of the full house...
Then the committee must examine the bill in detail...
Then the committee must report back to the house (its called the report stage funnily enough)...
Then there is the third reading of the bill...
Then the bill passes to the other house for first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading...
It then goes back to the first house for any amendments and alterations to be considered...
If amendments are rejected it returns to the amending house for reconsideration and re-amendment...
Then back to the first house etc. until both houses agree or the commons uses its powers to force the bill through.
Only then does it go forward for the Royal Accent.
Now considering that all takes parliamentary time and that is in short supply and it is now the end of January and Ms May has said she intends to trigger article 50 before the end of March I think she may be missing that deadline...
Of course April is budget month and the budget comes first as the law requires the government to pass annual budget legalisation and failure to do so will trigger a financial crisis and general election I'm guessing we are looking at June as the earliest that it may be possible to trigger article 50.
One way or another the governments legislative timetable has just gone out the window!
Funny then that David Davis and the government have said they are still on track to trigger article 50 before March 31st. No doubt in my mind Parliament will vote with a majority to trigger it, just like they did in December. Nothing has changed. "I guess you just didn't bother to read the process above then? Or do you just think the government, having being told it needs to go through due process, should just ignore it? The government's own lawyers have advised them that a single-line bill would be a bad idea. But even if they did a single-line bill I believe (but happy to be corrected) that it would still go through due process. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many English ppl wished Scotland ad voted to leave the uk when they ad the chance we don't here the whinging from the Wales and Northern Ireland like we do the scots Interesting reply when i said in a earlier post that why was it so many political parties wanted to hold onto Scotland and nobody answered that simple question. You WILL here winging fro the Welsh in a couple of years time i can promise you because i can understand people voting to leave the EU because say there was a lot of immigration in there area and they thought they were getting special treatment but Wales does not have a immigration problem Wales actually pay's less to the EU than they receive in regeneration grants. So where's all this regeneration money going to came from when we leave the EU. P.S Laughed so many times over so many years listening to literally 100,000 people making that old statement 'What's Scotland going to do when the oil runs out' not one of them had the intelligence to think 'what does the UK do when the oil runs out'. As i said a country now full of people who cherry pick the facts and no matter if your Scottish English Welsh or Irish voted to Remain or Leave the EU they will always put themselves what they want before this country. When did you ever hear anyone OFFER to do something themselves to help the NHS and the people that are suffering through the lack of services YOU WON'T there too busy thinking of someone to blame. It's been suggested many times over the years by different politicians that a penny should be put on income tax for the NHS do people want pay it NO there too busy spending that money on lottery tickets cause they might win million. In life words mean nothing only actions count. Why did Ms Sturgeon refuse to up income tax? She was always a big advocate of a tax rise" Why should the Scottish government ask the poor to pay more tax than the rest of the UK just to cover Tory austerity ? Remember the SNP opposed the cuts Labour abstained allowing the Tory cuts to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess you just didn't bother to read the process above then? Or do you just think the government, having being told it needs to go through due process, should just ignore it? The government's own lawyers have advised them that a single-line bill would be a bad idea. But even if they did a single-line bill I believe (but happy to be corrected) that it would still go through due process. -Matt" Of course they will eventually have to go through due process but that will not stop them trying to circumvent parliament and the courts. Fact is nobody wants to be in power when we leave the EU and everything tanks. So if Ms May can find some way of spinning everything out so she stays in office until 2020 but lands an incoming government with the economic results of brexit she and her cohorts are calculating that just like they were able to pass the blame for their PFI off onto labour they will be able to do the same with brexit. After all it worked last time...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many English ppl wished Scotland ad voted to leave the uk when they ad the chance we don't here the whinging from the Wales and Northern Ireland like we do the scots Interesting reply when i said in a earlier post that why was it so many political parties wanted to hold onto Scotland and nobody answered that simple question. You WILL here winging fro the Welsh in a couple of years time i can promise you because i can understand people voting to leave the EU because say there was a lot of immigration in there area and they thought they were getting special treatment but Wales does not have a immigration problem Wales actually pay's less to the EU than they receive in regeneration grants. So where's all this regeneration money going to came from when we leave the EU. P.S Laughed so many times over so many years listening to literally 100,000 people making that old statement 'What's Scotland going to do when the oil runs out' not one of them had the intelligence to think 'what does the UK do when the oil runs out'. As i said a country now full of people who cherry pick the facts and no matter if your Scottish English Welsh or Irish voted to Remain or Leave the EU they will always put themselves what they want before this country. When did you ever hear anyone OFFER to do something themselves to help the NHS and the people that are suffering through the lack of services YOU WON'T there too busy thinking of someone to blame. It's been suggested many times over the years by different politicians that a penny should be put on income tax for the NHS do people want pay it NO there too busy spending that money on lottery tickets cause they might win million. In life words mean nothing only actions count. Why did Ms Sturgeon refuse to up income tax? She was always a big advocate of a tax rise Why should the Scottish government ask the poor to pay more tax than the rest of the UK just to cover Tory austerity ? Remember the SNP opposed the cuts Labour abstained allowing the Tory cuts to happen. " The simple answer to that is we should to help the people of this country no matter if it's due to Labour Tory or even SNP cut's start putting the people of this country first your family your friends your neighbours not excuses I'm a life long SNP voter i believe in making this country of ours and after the majority voted to leave the EU to putting the GREAT back into Great Britain but none of that is going to happen if we do nothing but make excuses blame other's. We all want to live in a better country better living conditions excreta but leaving the EU isn't going to solve all our problems it may help some but not all. Have you ever heard that speech JFK made 'don't think about what your country can do for you think what you can do for your country'. Until people start thinking that way this country even after we leave the EU will go downhill because we will not do anything to help our own.As i said sadly this country has become a country of ME ME ME. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When did you ever hear anyone OFFER to do something themselves to help the NHS and the people that are suffering through the lack of services YOU WON'T there too busy thinking of someone to blame." Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But I seen to remember hearing that the RED CROSS had gone into a number of NHS hospitals to help last month. now I do believe they are volunteers, but I guess they don't count. I also notice WRVS volunteers making tea and selling cakes in hospitals, guess they are just fuddyduddies old busy bodies and don't count either and we can just casually dismiss the Friends of Hospitals who raise money for equipment. Then of course there is hospital radio, the RVS, the St John's Ambulance volunteers... I could go on but I think I have made my point about people doing things for the NHS. Just because you do nothing and don't take any notice of what is being done in front of you does not mean that nothing is being done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Not so quick... LoL
First there needs to be a green paper...
Then a white paper...
That must then be introduced to one of the houses as a bill for its first reading...
Then there is the second reading...
Then it goes to the committee stage
Where first a committee must be selected, but as this is such an important bill I expect it will require a committee of the full house...
Then the committee must examine the bill in detail...
Then the committee must report back to the house (its called the report stage funnily enough)...
Then there is the third reading of the bill...
Then the bill passes to the other house for first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading...
It then goes back to the first house for any amendments and alterations to be considered...
If amendments are rejected it returns to the amending house for reconsideration and re-amendment...
Then back to the first house etc. until both houses agree or the commons uses its powers to force the bill through.
Only then does it go forward for the Royal Accent.
Now considering that all takes parliamentary time and that is in short supply and it is now the end of January and Ms May has said she intends to trigger article 50 before the end of March I think she may be missing that deadline...
Of course April is budget month and the budget comes first as the law requires the government to pass annual budget legalisation and failure to do so will trigger a financial crisis and general election I'm guessing we are looking at June as the earliest that it may be possible to trigger article 50.
One way or another the governments legislative timetable has just gone out the window!
Funny then that David Davis and the government have said they are still on track to trigger article 50 before March 31st. No doubt in my mind Parliament will vote with a majority to trigger it, just like they did in December. Nothing has changed.
I guess you just didn't bother to read the process above then? Or do you just think the government, having being told it needs to go through due process, should just ignore it? The government's own lawyers have advised them that a single-line bill would be a bad idea. But even if they did a single-line bill I believe (but happy to be corrected) that it would still go through due process.
-Matt"I did read the above process, but I take it you've not been listening to the news? Brexit secretary David Davis and the government said after the Supreme court ruling this morning that they are still on track to trigger article 50 before the March 31st deadline. A debate and vote in Parliament will be done "within days". Gina Miller and other Rabid remainers attempts at sabotage of Brexit have failed, plus Gina Miller is a couple of million quid worse off into the bargain (reported what she has spent on this) so its a good result all around I'd say, lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When did you ever hear anyone OFFER to do something themselves to help the NHS and the people that are suffering through the lack of services YOU WON'T there too busy thinking of someone to blame. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But I seen to remember hearing that the RED CROSS had gone into a number of NHS hospitals to help last month. now I do believe they are volunteers, but I guess they don't count. I also notice WRVS volunteers making tea and selling cakes in hospitals, guess they are just fuddyduddies old busy bodies and don't count either and we can just casually dismiss the Friends of Hospitals who raise money for equipment. Then of course there is hospital radio, the RVS, the St John's Ambulance volunteers... I could go on but I think I have made my point about people doing things for the NHS. Just because you do nothing and don't take any notice of what is being done in front of you does not mean that nothing is being done." Well Sir may i start my reply by saying you have just shot yourself in the foot with both barrels with what you wrote, i will now give you a QUICK rundown of what this 'busybody has done' 30 years over half my life donating and fundraising for good causes and through my choice though i understand not everyone can do it never ever even claiming a SINGLE PENNY back in a little thing like expenses the only thing i got from it was the satisfaction that I WAS HELPING OTHER'S from the children who had been abused to the people who are visually impaired to working with children in a voluntary capacity who have Autism, much of that before i had TWO strokes but still involved in charity work to this very day and will continue till i physically can't. If you would like a list of what this 'busybody' has done sorry i can't cause as i'm sure you will know trying to remember every single thing you did in the last 30 years would be a struggle for anyone. So me and all those thousands of other volunteers will put something back to this life by helping other's but all the many that sit and blame other's while doing NOTHING won't help anyone. So to sum up this 'busybody' i will use a line from one of my favourite songs 'it's not the world i am changing i do this so this world we know will not change me' P.S With the different charities i have supported financially or volunteered with you or any of your family or friends could have benefited from this 'busybody'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so someone who has used due process to have Parliament rightly have their say on our behalf, you know the sovereign body which most brexiters where so vocal about being the arbiter of our destiny and not the EU is 'rabid'? " Gina Miller is someone who has said on record she felt physically sick on hearing the result of the referendum. So yeah I think that qualifies her as a 'Rabid' Remainer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so someone who has used due process to have Parliament rightly have their say on our behalf, you know the sovereign body which most brexiters where so vocal about being the arbiter of our destiny and not the EU is 'rabid'? Gina Miller is someone who has said on record she felt physically sick on hearing the result of the referendum. So yeah I think that qualifies her as a 'Rabid' Remainer. " maybe you need to look up the definition of rabid.. whats been closer to the definition is some of the vile threats she has received from the fuckwittery.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They'll never be a hard border in Ireland again.... We'll just blow them up if they do
I realise that was said tongue in cheek but where is the precedent to have an open border with one country in and one country out of the European customs union?"I also realize it was tongue in cheek but between 1945 and 1970 there was not a "hard" border;it was terrorism that created the need for one. It's unlikely Brexit would cause one, other issues may but I doubt the British government would insist on one. Ironically Europe may but I suspect that will be avoided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit secretary David Davis and the government said after the Supreme court ruling this morning that they are still on track to trigger article 50 before the March 31st deadline." Funny that, I heard him say that the high court challenge would fail... Wrong... Then they were all confident that the supreme court would overturn the high court ruling... Wrong... Now, nothing has changed and everything is on course... Did you read my post about the guy who jumped off the Empire State Building? I think the SoS is saying "So far! So good!" A happy landing awaits! LoL "A debate and vote in Parliament will be done "within days". Gina Miller and other Rabid remainers attempts at sabotage of Brexit have failed," I think that regardless of how much the government want to copy President Trump and rule by decree that as soon as the bill is presented to parliament they willl be in for a rude awakening. " plus Gina Miller is a couple of million quid worse off into the bargain (reported what she has spent on this) so its a good result all around I'd say, lol. "Nope! That is not how it works, she won, she gets all her costs so the only people out of pocket are us, because we (the tax payer) get to pay all the costs of everyone and you can bet it adds up to a lot more than a couple of million! So gloat away at the money your government wasted (that could have been spent in the NHS) because they were so arrogant that they thought it OK to usurp parliament authority. And tune in shortly for a rerun when they try to undermine the ruling of the highest court in the land by subverting parliaments authority again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I guess you just didn't bother to read the process above then? Or do you just think the government, having being told it needs to go through due process, should just ignore it? The government's own lawyers have advised them that a single-line bill would be a bad idea. But even if they did a single-line bill I believe (but happy to be corrected) that it would still go through due process. -Matt I did read the above process, but I take it you've not been listening to the news? Brexit secretary David Davis and the government said after the Supreme court ruling this morning that they are still on track to trigger article 50 before the March 31st deadline. A debate and vote in Parliament will be done "within days". Gina Miller and other Rabid remainers attempts at sabotage of Brexit have failed, plus Gina Miller is a couple of million quid worse off into the bargain (reported what she has spent on this) so its a good result all around I'd say, lol. "I guess we'll have to wait and see then... let's see how quickly they get it done.
-Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The decision on Tuesday really is irrelevant. If the Supreme court rule that the govenment can use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 then the government will use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 before March 31st and we can get on with Brexit and enter into negotiations with the EU. On the other hand if the Supreme court rule that the government must have a vote in Parliament to trigger article 50 then the government will have a vote in Parliament and Parliament will vote for it, then we can trigger article 50 before March 31st. The Tories have a majority and will be whipped to vote for it, and the Labour party have publically said they will vote for article 50 and they won't try to block it. The Ukip MP Douglas Carswell will also vote for it, and the DUP will also vote for it. The only ones who will vote against article 50 are the 9 Lib dem MP's and the 50 odd SNP MP's so they are hopelessly outnumbered. Parliament already had a vote on article 50 in December in principle and it was voted for with a good majority. " Up to here I actually agree with everything you've said. This case was never about whether BREXIT should or shouldn't happen but rather about whether sovereignty lies with parliament or the executive. Regardless what happens next with BREXIT the right decision has been made with regard to sovereignty and this now ensures that, whatever actually happens, it will be legally correct, binding and legally unchallenable. I still don't understand why the government, and BREXIT supporters, have made so much of it. " Gina Miller has wasted millions on this court case, her attempts to block Brexit or slow down Brexit have been thwarted.
Brexit is going to happen the sooner the Remoaners get used to it the better. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well Sir may i start my reply by saying you have just shot yourself in the foot with both barrels with what you wrote, i will now give you a QUICK rundown of what this 'busybody has done' 30 years over half my life donating and fundraising for good causes and through my choice though i understand not everyone can do it never ever even claiming a SINGLE PENNY back in a little thing like expenses the only thing i got from it was the satisfaction that I WAS HELPING OTHER'S from the children who had been abused to the people who are visually impaired to working with children in a voluntary capacity who have Autism, much of that before i had TWO strokes but still involved in charity work to this very day and will continue till i physically can't. If you would like a list of what this 'busybody' has done sorry i can't cause as i'm sure you will know trying to remember every single thing you did in the last 30 years would be a struggle for anyone. So me and all those thousands of other volunteers will put something back to this life by helping other's but all the many that sit and blame other's while doing NOTHING won't help anyone. So to sum up this 'busybody' i will use a line from one of my favourite songs 'it's not the world i am changing i do this so this world we know will not change me' P.S With the different charities i have supported financially or volunteered with you or any of your family or friends could have benefited from this 'busybody'. " My apologises, I did not realise you were DELIBERATELY ignoring all the NHS volunteers and undermining any point you had to make in order to have a general rant. It is truly a shame you would not only ignore all those who do so much good work volunteering and fund raising but that in the process you belittle your own efforts just to let off some steam. Maybe you should engage your brain a little more before posting. After all you must have know that someone here would pull you up on such a blatantly false statement as the one I replied to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I realise that was said tongue in cheek but where is the precedent to have an open border with one country in and one country out of the European customs union? I also realize it was tongue in cheek but between 1945 and 1970 there was not a "hard" border;it was terrorism that created the need for one. It's unlikely Brexit would cause one, other issues may but I doubt the British government would insist on one. Ironically Europe may but I suspect that will be avoided." There was never a hard border between the Republic and NI. There were VCP's some 100 or so yards inside NI, and some border roads were closed to vehicles by placing 'dragon teeth' on roads 50/100 yds inside NI. But part of the treaties that formed The Irish Free State and late The Republic of Ireland was a guarantee that the border between North and South would remain open in perpetuity. guess that's another treaty that we will be withdrawing from... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seems to be forgetting the Scottish Parliament case My opinion is - I expect the Supreme Court to indicate that we won't be leaving the European Union without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. If the Supreme Court rules as I expect it to then an English majority will not lawfully be able to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland. If that were to happen then what ? I think we all know a 2nd independence referendum is coming and it would be unwise for the unelected PM to rule one out " Unfortunately, and in my opinion legally correctly, the Supreme Court has ruled, as I predicted it would, that the Westminster Parliament is alone solely and wholly sovereign throughout the UK and that all law (including Scottish Law and European Law) derives its legitimacy only from Parliament in Westminster. This has always been the case for over 300 years, is the case now (despite what some BREXTREMIST or Scottish Nationalists might say) and will remain the case into the furniture (unless Scotland becomes independent - which, legally, it can only do with the consent of the Parliment in Westminster). All that being said, and legally correct, if the English insist on dragging Scotland out of the EU, the Single Market and the customs union against the clearly expressed whishes of both the Scottish people and their elected representatives both in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments I think the future of the United Kingdon as a unitary state will be placed in serious jeopardy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seems to be forgetting the Scottish Parliament case My opinion is - I expect the Supreme Court to indicate that we won't be leaving the European Union without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. If the Supreme Court rules as I expect it to then an English majority will not lawfully be able to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland. If that were to happen then what ? I think we all know a 2nd independence referendum is coming and it would be unwise for the unelected PM to rule one out Unfortunately, and in my opinion legally correctly, the Supreme Court has ruled, as I predicted it would, that the Westminster Parliament is alone solely and wholly sovereign throughout the UK and that all law (including Scottish Law and European Law) derives its legitimacy only from Parliament in Westminster. This has always been the case for over 300 years, is the case now (despite what some BREXTREMIST or Scottish Nationalists might say) and will remain the case into the furniture (unless Scotland becomes independent - which, legally, it can only do with the consent of the Parliment in Westminster). All that being said, and legally correct, if the English insist on dragging Scotland out of the EU, the Single Market and the customs union against the clearly expressed whishes of both the Scottish people and their elected representatives both in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments I think the future of the United Kingdon as a unitary state will be placed in serious jeopardy. " Scotland aren't in the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An elected member of the Spanish government was there as a government representative. He was making clear the Spanish government position on Scotland joining the EU. That was when the Scottish plan was to leave the UK and then join the EU as an independent member. If you remember the in campaign said Scotland could not leave the UK (an EU member) and remain in the EU, that a vote to leave the UK was a vote to leave the EU. Scotland has now voted twice to remain in the EU but is now being forced out against its will. So the situation has changed, and I am willing to bet a penny to a pound that if Scotland now votes to leave the UK in favour of the EU the EU will accept them with open arms." The former deputy leader of the SNP Jim Sillers doesn't seem to agree with you. He appeared on channel 4 news at 7pm and said the SNP would lose another indy ref if they call one now, the economic situation for Scotland is worse now the pice of oil has dropped and there is no guarantee Scotland will be able to join the EU. Frankly Nicola Sturgeon should wind her neck in. Brexit supporters are now being told accept the Supreme court ruling they agreed with a majority 8 to 3 that Parliament should have the final say. Of course this works both ways because the Supreme court judges agreed unanimously 11 to 0 that the devolved Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get to decide, only the UK parliament in Westminster! I accept the Supreme court ruling today and am very happy with it as someone who voted Leave, but Sturgeon is still moaning and refusing to accept the ruling of 11 Supreme court judges who went against what she wanted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully. "Totally incorrect. Whilst it is true that Parliament voted 6 to 1 in favour of the people of the UK having a say in the referendum you either forgot to say or possibly did not know that the legislation that enabled the referendum made clear that the result of the referendum was only advisory. Parliament could have chosen to make the referendum vote binding but it chose not to. Therefore, legally, parliament is under no binding obligation to do anything. That's what Parliamentary Sovereignty means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seems to be forgetting the Scottish Parliament case My opinion is - I expect the Supreme Court to indicate that we won't be leaving the European Union without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. If the Supreme Court rules as I expect it to then an English majority will not lawfully be able to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland. If that were to happen then what ? I think we all know a 2nd independence referendum is coming and it would be unwise for the unelected PM to rule one out Unfortunately, and in my opinion legally correctly, the Supreme Court has ruled, as I predicted it would, that the Westminster Parliament is alone solely and wholly sovereign throughout the UK and that all law (including Scottish Law and European Law) derives its legitimacy only from Parliament in Westminster. This has always been the case for over 300 years, is the case now (despite what some BREXTREMIST or Scottish Nationalists might say) and will remain the case into the furniture (unless Scotland becomes independent - which, legally, it can only do with the consent of the Parliment in Westminster). All that being said, and legally correct, if the English insist on dragging Scotland out of the EU, the Single Market and the customs union against the clearly expressed whishes of both the Scottish people and their elected representatives both in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments I think the future of the United Kingdon as a unitary state will be placed in serious jeopardy. Scotland aren't in the EU" If Scotland isn't in the EU, then neither is England, Wales or NI and all this Brexit crap has been a waste of time. Obviously there is no need for the government to trigger article 50 if we're not even in the EU in the first place, is there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt
So in your world 'likely' is a fact?"It is now. Just suck it up, accept it and move on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seems to be forgetting the Scottish Parliament case My opinion is - I expect the Supreme Court to indicate that we won't be leaving the European Union without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. If the Supreme Court rules as I expect it to then an English majority will not lawfully be able to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland. If that were to happen then what ? I think we all know a 2nd independence referendum is coming and it would be unwise for the unelected PM to rule one out Unfortunately, and in my opinion legally correctly, the Supreme Court has ruled, as I predicted it would, that the Westminster Parliament is alone solely and wholly sovereign throughout the UK and that all law (including Scottish Law and European Law) derives its legitimacy only from Parliament in Westminster. This has always been the case for over 300 years, is the case now (despite what some BREXTREMIST or Scottish Nationalists might say) and will remain the case into the furniture (unless Scotland becomes independent - which, legally, it can only do with the consent of the Parliment in Westminster). All that being said, and legally correct, if the English insist on dragging Scotland out of the EU, the Single Market and the customs union against the clearly expressed whishes of both the Scottish people and their elected representatives both in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments I think the future of the United Kingdon as a unitary state will be placed in serious jeopardy. Scotland aren't in the EU If Scotland isn't in the EU, then neither is England, Wales or NI and all this Brexit crap has been a waste of time. Obviously there is no need for the government to trigger article 50 if we're not even in the EU in the first place, is there? " well I've got a list of the 28 EU countries in front of me and you're right, Scotland, England, Wales and NI are not on it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seems to be forgetting the Scottish Parliament case My opinion is - I expect the Supreme Court to indicate that we won't be leaving the European Union without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. If the Supreme Court rules as I expect it to then an English majority will not lawfully be able to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland. If that were to happen then what ? I think we all know a 2nd independence referendum is coming and it would be unwise for the unelected PM to rule one out Unfortunately, and in my opinion legally correctly, the Supreme Court has ruled, as I predicted it would, that the Westminster Parliament is alone solely and wholly sovereign throughout the UK and that all law (including Scottish Law and European Law) derives its legitimacy only from Parliament in Westminster. This has always been the case for over 300 years, is the case now (despite what some BREXTREMIST or Scottish Nationalists might say) and will remain the case into the furniture (unless Scotland becomes independent - which, legally, it can only do with the consent of the Parliment in Westminster). All that being said, and legally correct, if the English insist on dragging Scotland out of the EU, the Single Market and the customs union against the clearly expressed whishes of both the Scottish people and their elected representatives both in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments I think the future of the United Kingdon as a unitary state will be placed in serious jeopardy. Scotland aren't in the EU If Scotland isn't in the EU, then neither is England, Wales or NI and all this Brexit crap has been a waste of time. Obviously there is no need for the government to trigger article 50 if we're not even in the EU in the first place, is there? " All of those countries are in the EU collectively as the UK. They are not members of the EU as individual separate countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They'll never be a hard border in Ireland again.... We'll just blow them up if they do
I realise that was said tongue in cheek but where is the precedent to have an open border with one country in and one country out of the European customs union?
I also realize it was tongue in cheek but between 1945 and 1970 there was not a "hard" border;it was terrorism that created the need for one. It's unlikely Brexit would cause one, other issues may but I doubt the British government would insist on one. Ironically Europe may but I suspect that will be avoided."The ROI was not part of the EU pre 1970 and neither was the UK. The ROI is now part of the EU single market and the customs union and the U.K. seemingly wants to leave both. This means that there will be a multitude of different tariffs on place on different products. The border will either become a free for all for smugglers or people and goods will have to be checked. That is how it is under international law and there is little the UK or ROI can do unless they want free for all cross border smuggling of goods and people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt
So in your world 'likely' is a fact?
It is now. Just suck it up, accept it and move on. "As Sturgeon should also now suck it up, accept it and move on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt
So in your world 'likely' is a fact?
It is now. Just suck it up, accept it and move on.
As Sturgeon should also now suck it up, accept it and move on. ""Unlikely" and thats a fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!"You're wrong. Parliament could have chosen to make the referendum binding, as it did with the Scottish Independence Referendum. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK a whole set of other things would have been set in motion. That was not the case with the EU referendum, which Parliament decided would be only advisory. You are partially correct in one way: Even if Parliament had made the referendum binding and legislated that, in the event of a leave vote Article 50 must be triggered within a set period of time (which it could have easily done if it had wanted) it could still have changed its mind. The difference is is that on an advisory referendum Parliament has to do something to make it happen, on a binding referendum Parliament would have to do something to stop it happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An elected member of the Spanish government was there as a government representative. He was making clear the Spanish government position on Scotland joining the EU. That was when the Scottish plan was to leave the UK and then join the EU as an independent member. If you remember the in campaign said Scotland could not leave the UK (an EU member) and remain in the EU, that a vote to leave the UK was a vote to leave the EU. Scotland has now voted twice to remain in the EU but is now being forced out against its will. So the situation has changed, and I am willing to bet a penny to a pound that if Scotland now votes to leave the UK in favour of the EU the EU will accept them with open arms. The former deputy leader of the SNP Jim Sillers doesn't seem to agree with you. He appeared on channel 4 news at 7pm and said the SNP would lose another indy ref if they call one now, the economic situation for Scotland is worse now the pice of oil has dropped and there is no guarantee Scotland will be able to join the EU. Frankly Nicola Sturgeon should wind her neck in. Brexit supporters are now being told accept the Supreme court ruling they agreed with a majority 8 to 3 that Parliament should have the final say. Of course this works both ways because the Supreme court judges agreed unanimously 11 to 0 that the devolved Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get to decide, only the UK parliament in Westminster! I accept the Supreme court ruling today and am very happy with it as someone who voted Leave, but Sturgeon is still moaning and refusing to accept the ruling of 11 Supreme court judges who went against what she wanted. " Forget what Sturgeon say's and that's from a SNP supporter yes she's only thinking about her own political ambitions. Yes Scotland does a lot of trade with the EU so leaving will affect trade but the majority of Scot's DO NOT want another Indy referendum DO NOT want a rerun of the EU vote. Even she doesn't want to face facts she ran the last election in Scotland on the ticket of another Indy vote so what happened the SNP ended up with less seats than they had before the election, what does that tell you. She's just like Nigel Farage if his lovers would take there rose coloured spectacles off and actually look at what he does not just him saying the right thing they would see there the same. I want everything that benefits myself just make sure you say the right thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!
The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million pounds of taxpayers money clearly stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks that the referendum was advisory and the result of it would be ignored by government is being naive in the extreme. "I don't think anymore thinks that the government should, or will, ignore the result (although I personally wouldn't cry any tears if it did). The argument is about what the government can and can't do legally in relation to the result. The fact is, legally, the referendum was advisory and, as such, the government does not legally have to do anything and if it does chose to do anything it must go through Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seems to be forgetting the Scottish Parliament case My opinion is - I expect the Supreme Court to indicate that we won't be leaving the European Union without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. If the Supreme Court rules as I expect it to then an English majority will not lawfully be able to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland. If that were to happen then what ? I think we all know a 2nd independence referendum is coming and it would be unwise for the unelected PM to rule one out Unfortunately, and in my opinion legally correctly, the Supreme Court has ruled, as I predicted it would, that the Westminster Parliament is alone solely and wholly sovereign throughout the UK and that all law (including Scottish Law and European Law) derives its legitimacy only from Parliament in Westminster. This has always been the case for over 300 years, is the case now (despite what some BREXTREMIST or Scottish Nationalists might say) and will remain the case into the furniture (unless Scotland becomes independent - which, legally, it can only do with the consent of the Parliment in Westminster). All that being said, and legally correct, if the English insist on dragging Scotland out of the EU, the Single Market and the customs union against the clearly expressed whishes of both the Scottish people and their elected representatives both in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments I think the future of the United Kingdon as a unitary state will be placed in serious jeopardy. Scotland aren't in the EU" As a Scotsman who voted to Remain but accepts the majority voted Leave and that will happen could you please explain to me how England dragged Scotland out the EU, did they not bother counting the votes of the people of Wales and N. Ireland? The same as all these people taking about the Indy vote saying Scotland wants to break away from England HELLO it's called the United Kingdom never heard of it before? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
No, the people were authorised by Parliament to have the final say last June. If the members of Supreme Court compromise that authority then it would be they who would be acting unlawfully.
Wow, how many falsehoods can you fit in a single paragraph? Or are the just 'alternative facts'?
-Matt
"Alternative facts". What you actually mean is moving the goal posts and re-writing the rules AFTER kick off.
We have a parliamentary democracy here in the U.K. The referendum was advisory. The government have not yet put a bill taking us out of the EU in front of parliament to vote on. The high court ruled the government must follow the law. The Supreme Court will likely do the same.
In what way is ANY of that moving the goalposts? If you have been mislead as to any of the above, then that is your problem. It does not change the facts.
-Matt.
I agree with every thing you said, however your misrepresenting "advisory" I don't think (I could be wrong) that any referendum is legal due to having a parliamentary sovereignty, so yes only parliament can make it "legal" however parliament arent asking what the people think via a referendum, there passing there usual decision making legal duties on the the people, they make the decision on those rare cases and yes it is then upto parliament to make it "legal".
Parliament shouldn't and have never gone against a referendum decision.... Advise is one thing but ignoring an order is another!
The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million pounds of taxpayers money clearly stated that the government would implement the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks that the referendum was advisory and the result of it would be ignored by government is being naive in the extreme.
Or just undemocratic. "Or just possibly supporting the rule of law rather than what they think will give them the outcome they want quickly. This ruling actually makes a legally binding and unchallengeable BREXIT more likely not less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt
do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them?
And why would this set a dangerous precedent?
Yes, I voted.
The government deciding that parliament is not actually sovereign and that they can overrule it using royal prerogative when it suits them is a dangerous precedent. We have parliamentary sovereignty. As a nation we made that quite clear when we beheaded the king in 1649.
-Matt
That would be the parliamentary sovereignty you want to destroy by keeping us in the EU then, where the EU has the ability to over ride our Parliamentary sovereignty. "No it doesn't. Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act which incorporates European Law into British Domestic Law. Parliament still remains sovereign because Parliament can repeal the 1972 act at any time it chooses. EU law only applies in the UK because Parliament agreed to it and when, or if, Parliament agrees to end it, it will simply no longer apply. Sovereignty is not about passing laws but about the legitimacy of those laws thus EU law is only legitimate in the UK because our Sovereign Parliament says it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"beat me to it Don't worry... it has only been published for 18 months... what does a few minutes matter
-Matt
You seem to be having trouble with time line of events. The official government leaflet that was issued to every house in the UK during the referendum at a cost of £9 million of tax payers money was only 7 months ago. The government leaflet clearly stated the government would implement the result of the referendum. "Put it's not in the governments gift to implement it with out the consent and agreement of Parliament. That's the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At NO TIME was any of these court cases about overturning the vote it was all about who get's to make the final decision on the deals negotiated so why are so many people talking about anybody overturning the vote. It was not long after the vote you had both sides arguing about the petition to rerun the vote and went and had a look at it and had to laugh at both sides of the divide. If you didn't see it this is what it asked for a rule to be put in BEFORE the vote saying it was not valid unless a certain percentage was won by either side, don't mention to the 4 million that signed it don't tell the leave side arguing, the vote had already taken place what a load of rubbish." You mean the petition that was signed by Romanians, Poles and various other Europeans including several thousand votes from Vatican City who couldn't vote in the referendum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For fucks sake, the government then and now have overplayed their authority. They should have been saying 'will seek to' etc etc. Usually governments have a majority and get their way so a bit of arrogance creeps in. But parliament is sovereign. We fought a civil war about it. You fought a referendum on it. Supposedly. As Tony Benn used to say when he was alive, the EU will ultimately destroy our parliamentary sovereignty if we stay in the EU. Boris Johnson asked David Cameron a straight question in the house of commons during the referendum...."is this house sovereign? ". David Cameron couldn't give a straight answer because he knew the EU was undermining our Parliamentary sovereignty and was chipping away at it piece by piece. The EU would have destroyed our parliamentary sovereignty had we stayed a member. " The EU could not destroy our sovereignty even if it wanted to. The only way the Sovereignty of Parliament could be legally removed is by Parliament itself agreeing to give that sovereign to another body and then voting itself out of existence (like the Scottish Parliament did in 1707). There is no other way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is funny is all the people pretending that they knew all along that the triggering of Article 50 would have to go to a vote in Parliament
Why wouldn't it? It was quite clearly stated it was not legally binding.
oh and some people are going to look a tad silly if the Supreme Court goes against their expert legal knowledge and finds for the Government
If they do, then I will accept the ruling. I sincerely hope they don't though, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
-Matt
do you really think that 40 million people read the rules of the referendum? Why didn't we just have a phone vote, you know, something like the X Factor? And I take it that you did not vote? After all, what was the point? Do you think people went along to the polling stations just to give an opinion? And then for someone else to make a decision for them?
And why would this set a dangerous precedent?
Yes, I voted.
The government deciding that parliament is not actually sovereign and that they can overrule it using royal prerogative when it suits them is a dangerous precedent. We have parliamentary sovereignty. As a nation we made that quite clear when we beheaded the king in 1649.
-Matt
That would be the parliamentary sovereignty you want to destroy by keeping us in the EU then, where the EU has the ability to over ride our Parliamentary sovereignty.
No it doesn't. Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act which incorporates European Law into British Domestic Law. Parliament still remains sovereign because Parliament can repeal the 1972 act at any time it chooses. EU law only applies in the UK because Parliament agreed to it and when, or if, Parliament agrees to end it, it will simply no longer apply. Sovereignty is not about passing laws but about the legitimacy of those laws thus EU law is only legitimate in the UK because our Sovereign Parliament says it is."I think the term you are looking for is what many Remainers were calling "Pooled Sovereignty" that means we are in effect sharing our sovereignty with the EU, that includes Parliamentary sovereignty being shared. The British public rejected the idea of 'Pooled sovereignty' with the EU during the referendum and voted accordingly with a 52% against. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could have been a lot worse. They found that the British parliament was responsible for the devolved parliaments ie.Scotland Northern Ireland. Oh my, Ms Sturgeon has just choked on her cornflakes! "I don't think so. Just as Parliamentary Sovereignty means the Parliament in Westminster is Sovereign over the government on all domestic law it also means that the Parliament in Westminster is sovereign throughout the UK. If anything this plays right into her hands for her main agenda, which is removing Scotland from the UK and (Westminster's) Parliament's Sovereignty. This whole BREXIT debacle is a gift horse to all nationalists in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could have been a lot worse. They found that the British parliament was responsible for the devolved parliaments ie.Scotland Northern Ireland. Oh my, Ms Sturgeon has just choked on her cornflakes!
I don't think so. Just as Parliamentary Sovereignty means the Parliament in Westminster is Sovereign over the government on all domestic law it also means that the Parliament in Westminster is sovereign throughout the UK. If anything this plays right into her hands for her main agenda, which is removing Scotland from the UK and (Westminster's) Parliament's Sovereignty. This whole BREXIT debacle is a gift horse to all nationalists in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales."Sorry it is not a gift horse to all nationalists there are people who want to be independent to run there own affairs and on the other side which is a small majority like Nicola want independence no matter what the Scottish electorate want there's a BIG difference. P.S Jim Sillars the ex leader of the SNP which i'm guessing you would call a nationalist said in a TV interview just today if the SNP was to hold another Indy vote tomorrow they would loose it just as i say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution" You're correct, the government has not done anything wrong and may well have been acting in good faith. However most legal opinion was was that the government was going to lose on Westminster Parliament and win on devolved assemblies. We could have all saved a lot of time, money and bandwidth if the government had accepted that back in November and simply gone through parliament anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At NO TIME was any of these court cases about overturning the vote it was all about who get's to make the final decision on the deals negotiated so why are so many people talking about anybody overturning the vote. It was not long after the vote you had both sides arguing about the petition to rerun the vote and went and had a look at it and had to laugh at both sides of the divide. If you didn't see it this is what it asked for a rule to be put in BEFORE the vote saying it was not valid unless a certain percentage was won by either side, don't mention to the 4 million that signed it don't tell the leave side arguing, the vote had already taken place what a load of rubbish. You mean the petition that was signed by Romanians, Poles and various other Europeans including several thousand votes from Vatican City who couldn't vote in the referendum? "Please i'm hoping English is you mother language now read my post AGAIN and try to work out what they actually mean you will understand it eventually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"8-3 ruling that the govt has to go via parliament. Let's hope May has been working on a bill then. -Matt were the 3 who found for the government wrong? No; Law ( particularly UK law) is an interpretative process. The finest legal minds in the country have considered the interpretation of the UK law; and the majority have come to a conclusion. 8 had one conclusion; 3 had another; The body of UK law has now been improved as a result of the clarity of the judgement. The extent of the government' ability to use prerogative to circumvent parliament has been further defined. Simple . It is both a failing, and a strength of the UK that it has no written constitution. It countries with a written constitution, this would not have happened, as the procedure for something like BREXIT, would be clear; UK constitution is a result of growing by custom, practice and precedent. The weakness of that is that governments can push procedures to a limit, and can undermine " democracy" by manipulating the unwritten constitution to their own ends. This ruling clarifies the power of the government versus the parliament. Further; you don't know what elements of the judgement were not agreed with by the 3 dissenters, or how far they deviated from the final decision. true, the point I'm trying to make is that the decision could just as easily gone the other way and it was all about interpretation, the government weren't doing anything wrong or going against the constitution The government were doing something wrong... or about to. That is why the High Court ruled they could not do it. They appealed it. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court that the government could not take us out of the EU without an act of parliament. -Matt" I think "wrong", whilst technically correct, is too strong a word for it. "Mistaken" would probably be better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I meant the 3 who voted for the government
I can't believe that some leavers are still complaining about uk decisions about U.K. Law being left to U.K. Judges... I thought that's what they wanted?
Just be thankful that the devolved governments don't get the right to stop the process... and hopefully the government honour the spirit of the decision and give a full substantive bill where amendments can be tabled rather than just a one paragraph statement
Personally I don't see why parliament gets to vote on the final bill but the people don't... but that may end up being a tabled amendment "Personally I wasn't in favour of the first referendum in 1975, I wasn't in favour of the second referendum in 2016 and I don't want a third referendum in 2018/9+. Parliament should have decided this and I want Parliament to decide it, even if it goes against my preference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not a expert on the intricacies of this ruling but if this means that MP's have a vote on every word of the Brexit agreement every deal made we are in BIG trouble because they all want different things from it." True, and as a result dialog between the factions will be fostered to give a negotiated settlement. Leaving the EU should be treated with the seriousness it deserves. The very direction and very fabric of UK society lies in the hands of people who will be shaping the destiny of all citizens in U.K. Yes it will be painful to see and hear, but it is for the best in the long run. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so they went against the constitution? Should they face some disciplinary/legal action? I have just spent an hour reading the judgement before commenting, you would do well to do similar before passing comments like the one above! Paragraphs 34 and 35 make it clear why the only people attempting to subvert our constitution were the government. Those 2 paragraphs set out the legal principals that removed the right of the government to use the Royal Prerogative. You can read the whole judgement or the press release here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html However to save you the effort the basic principle is a ministers stated intention to place a bill before parliament does not have any legal standing. A court cannot pass judgements on the basis that a statute will be enacted. There is lots more, case law, arguments, counter arguments, stuff about the referendum acts. you may also like to read para 50 to 59 as well as the press release. I'm glad that a ruling has been made. I've not yet had a chance to read the ruling, but just heard a BBC commentator read some of it that said part of the reasoning behind the ruling was something to do with the fact that EU law overrides UK law?" Then you misheard. The ruling was based on the reality that the British Sovereign Parliament in Westminster passed the 1972 European Communities Act which incorporated EU/EC/EEC law into British domestic Law. EU law directly confers rights and obligations on British Citizens but those rights and obligations are only legitimised as domestic law as a result of the 1972 act. Therefore to take any action that would lead to the eventual removal of those rights and obligations requires an act of the British Sovereign Parliament in Westminster. It has nothing to do with EU law overriding UK law (which is actually another BREXIT myth). All law, however legitimised, overrides existing law when ever a new law comes into conflict with existing law. EU law, as legally domestic law according to the 1972 act, is no different. Parliamentary Sovereignty is preserved because our Sovereign Parliament in Westminster can, at any time it choses, repeal the 1972 Act and, in doing so, all EU law would no longer be domestic law and no longer actually be legitimate or law at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They'll never be a hard border in Ireland again.... We'll just blow them up if they do "Which "we" is going to blow up which "them"? Regrettably, I think a new hard border with the Irish Republic is looking like an ever more likely outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scotland will have the final say
Turns out this statement made the other day was an 'alternative fact' then, just like I said. The real fact is Scotland WON'T have the final say. The final say will be Parliament so let's have the vote now and get on with Brexit.
Today is a good day as it makes a 2nd independence 100% likely now.
Now i know alot of people in England may not have followed the first independence referendum in 2014 but all three union parties claimed with a no vote Scotland will have the most devolved Parliament in the world today the Scotland bill is a piece of shit
Note this part of the Scotland Act 1998.
“2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””
Here we go again.
1) you are correct that is exactly what the sewel convention says. "Normally" is the important word here
2) 100% likely??? Is that a new type of oxymoron?
3) finally lets dispel this indyref2 myth shall we.
A) did scotland along with the rest of the uk have a vote in the referendum?
"No, Scotland did not have a vote in the referendum. The people of Scotland who where eligible to vote had one vote each. " B) did the UK vote to leave? " Yes, but Scotland voted to remain. " C) does scotland already get more financial support than any other part of the uk per person " It depends what you mean. Scotland gets more per head on average from the UK government than England does but I'm not sure thar it gets more per head on average than any other part of the UK. I'm pretty sure there are some deprived areas in England that actually get more per head on average than Scotland does. If you mean EU money then Scotland, unlike Wales and Northern Ireland, is a net contributor to the EU. " D) can Scotland actually afford to leave the UK? " Yes. It would be difficult and would almost definitely lead to a reduction in overall wealth in Scotland (and probably England and the rest of the UK to). But, a bit like BREXIT supporters, some, possibility many, may feel it's worth the pain. " E) have Spain already dispelled the myth that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU on numerous occasions? " Yes, but politics moves on and, if Spain can be convinced that it's in their own self interest to allow Scotland in, it will. " F) should we not be having a referendum with the whole UK about Scotland's independence as it would in fact have an impact on us all? " No. Scotland's future is for Scotland to decide. If Scotland wants to leave the UK it would be wrong for the English to stop them by force of numbers. If we can't persuade them to stay by reasoned argument and compromise then we must let then go there own way. This whole BREXIT debacle is a golden gift to nationalists and every argument BREXITers use to further it is just more ammunition for the nationalists to use to break up the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
