Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Racing Teatray

Strike 1 for common sense

Government loses Brexit case in court:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Big Blue

The Whips are already doing the rounds.
Bob Sacamano

UKIP will be ecstatic. Since the vote they've been casting round for a raison d'etre and this will give them new impetus. I can see a lot of Tory MPs looking over their shoulder nervously as UKIP candidates are put up against them - and they will lose their seats.

If this decision stands, (and it won't), we'll be seeing a flood of new UKIP MPs at the next General Election.

If you people a vote on leaving and then choose to ignore their decision I can only see this as a bad thing for democracy and if people see their vote is useless they'll find other, possibly violent, ways to ensure they will is followed.

So it's victory, probably only temporary, but certainly not one for common sense.
Racing Teatray

Bonkers Ukipper, Suzanne Evans tweeted this:

"How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will? It's a power grab & undermines democracy. Time we had the right to sack them."

Activist judges?  The High Court of England and Wales? That would be a first!!

This just lends weight to my view that the Brexit tendency fundamentally does not understand the principles of either law or democracy.
Tim

I've come to accept that Brexit is going to happen and we'll just have to see what happens but the one thing that's really been getting on my tits about it, and this applies to all recent election results, is the constant harping on about "the will of the people".
It's simply not.
It's a small majority of the number of people who could actually be arsed to show up and vote and to see it as anything else is wrong, it wasn't 60 or 70% in favour.

I know its just a small point but its bugging me almost as much as reading about Porsches in car mags.
Racing Teatray

Oh likewise. Couldn't agree more.

Whereas it was a 67% victory for "In" in 1975, which you could consider emphatic and yet that didn't prevent 41 years of bitching until another referendum got them the "right" result...
Bob Sacamano

Racing Teatray wrote:
Oh likewise. Couldn't agree more.

Whereas it was a 67% victory for "In" in 1975, which you could consider emphatic and yet that didn't prevent 41 years of bitching until another referendum got them the "right" result...


Dangerous ground that; ask anyone who voted in 1973 if they got what they voted for and it will be a resounding no. They were hoodwinked then and similarly one side is being hoodwinked now. History will once again show which side actually got shafted in June.
JohnC

As I have said many times before, major constitutional change should require the votes of more than 50% of the electorate (not just those who turn up) and should require a higher majority, perhaps 60% of the votes.

Failure to require a noticeable majority means that serious life changing decisions can often be made on the basis of lies and the direction of the Political wind at the time. A degree of certainty and safety needs to be built in to these results.
PG

I always had my doubts that the UK would actually be allowed to leave the EU. We shall see where this goes.

I think judges and others saying this is just about the law are playing a dangerous game. When judges decide to get involved in what is, essentially, a political matter, then that is the beginning of a slippery slope.
Tim

I think a huge irony is going to be that the Tory party will still be split on what they want even after all this.

It's just lucky for them that Labour are useless and the Limp Dems have disappeared into the wilderness.
Racing Teatray

PG wrote:
I always had my doubts that the UK would actually be allowed to leave the EU. We shall see where this goes.

I think judges and others saying this is just about the law are playing a dangerous game. When judges decide to get involved in what is, essentially, a political matter, then that is the beginning of a slippery slope.


What is Parliament if not political?

However, the court hasn't done anything except rule that the triggering of Article 50 is something that, as a matter of English law, requires a vote in Parliament and cannot be done by the Government of the day exercising Crown prerogative. That is, speaking as a lawyer, a purely legal matter.

If you say "well, we should simply ignore what the law of the land requires because of political will", then I'm afraid that's the much slipperier slope and undemocratic in the extreme.

That's pretty clear if you read this, which is the official summary of the High Court's decision: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-c...e-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
Martin

Apparently Boris thinks we'll make a "Titanic Success" of our exit from Europe......
Racing Teatray

Martin wrote:
Apparently Boris thinks we'll make a "Titanic Success" of our exit from Europe......


According to the press report that remark "brought the house down". Which, all things considered, strikes me as piling unfortunate metaphor upon unfortunate metaphor...
gonnabuildabuggy

PG wrote:
I always had my doubts that the UK would actually be allowed to leave the EU. We shall see where this goes.

I think judges and others saying this is just about the law are playing a dangerous game. When judges decide to get involved in what is, essentially, a political matter, then that is the beginning of a slippery slope.


I share your views on the former.

On the latter then it's less clear, the point of law they were being asked to uphold was a valid one, even if in this precise case there was an argument the rules/law was invalid as the referendum was exactly that.

I'd expected the pound to plunge on the news but it rose.

I thought the EU would have been working on a Greece style fudge by now but so far it seems they are playing hardball.
Martin

Racing Teatray wrote:
Martin wrote:
Apparently Boris thinks we'll make a "Titanic Success" of our exit from Europe......


According to the press report that remark "brought the house down". Which, all things considered, strikes me as piling unfortunate metaphor upon unfortunate metaphor...


Twelfth Monkey

JohnC wrote:
As I have said many times before, major constitutional change should require the votes of more than 50% of the electorate (not just those who turn up) and should require a higher majority, perhaps 60% of the votes.

Failure to require a noticeable majority means that serious life changing decisions can often be made on the basis of lies and the direction of the Political wind at the time. A degree of certainty and safety needs to be built in to these results.


Yep, like Monty Python's Constitutional Peasants!

Cracking choice of words, eh Martin?!
Racing Teatray

There's are pretty stark differences between the respective positions of Britain and Greece that I assume do not need to be set out!!
Frank Bullitt

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Oh likewise. Couldn't agree more.

Whereas it was a 67% victory for "In" in 1975, which you could consider emphatic and yet that didn't prevent 41 years of bitching until another referendum got them the "right" result...


Dangerous ground that; ask anyone who voted in 1973 if they got what they voted for and it will be a resounding no. They were hoodwinked then and similarly one side is being hoodwinked now. History will once again show which side actually got shafted in June.


Solid ground - ask the people who voted out in 10 years whether they got what they expected and it will be a resounding no.

A referendum is not a legally binding act, parliamentary votes are - technically, politicians should vote 'leave' in order to continue this charade of course so that democracy works.
PG

Racing Teatray wrote:
That's pretty clear if you read this, which is the official summary of the High Court's decision: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-c...e-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf


I've read that and I stand by my comment that it is a political decision.

The judges are relying on the argument that leaving will change domestic law and therefore needs Parliament to approve notice to leave. It is not a Crown power to exercise Article 50.  

However, the corrollary of that is that in passing an Act to have a referendum whether to decide to leave or not,  Parliament (which was well aware of the methodology that would be required to be undertaken to leave i.e exercise Article 50) already agreed that if the referendum was a yes vote then Article 50 had to be exercised.
Nice Guy Eddie

Folk seem to be getting rather excited about this as if the vote never happened and we can all carry on. This is just about triggering article 50 and not leaving the EU.

I'm all for the delay as I want to wait till 2018 as by then the European project may well be on its arse anyway and we'll be well placed to capitalise. Well capitalise on the shit storm that'll be left.
Racing Teatray

PG wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
That's pretty clear if you read this, which is the official summary of the High Court's decision: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-c...e-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf


I've read that and I stand by my comment that it is a political decision.

The judges are relying on the argument that leaving will change domestic law and therefore needs Parliament to approve notice to leave. It is not a Crown power to exercise Article 50.  

However, the corrollary of that is that in passing an Act to have a referendum whether to decide to leave or not,  Parliament (which was well aware of the methodology that would be required to be undertaken to leave i.e exercise Article 50) already agreed that if the referendum was a yes vote then Article 50 had to be exercised.


A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. As someone once sang...

Point me to the bit of the 2015 Act whereby Parliament abdicated responsibility for implementing the referendum result. If it was there, the High Court would have not reached the decision it did.
Big Blue

I must say I don't think the principles of the Common Market in 1975 in any way match the activity and governance of the EU in 2016.

As to judges v politics, the law simply interprets the legislation laid down by Parliament. Our parliamentary principle is that parliament is elected to make these kind of decisions through voting by the elected members. The purpose of the referendum could be seen as a way to guide MPs and gauge public opinion ahead of a vote. It was assumed by David Cameron after various polls that it would merely be a justification for continued membership of the EU and shut some of his noisy backbenchers up - it went slightly wrong (a two point swing would've been "right" hence only slightly wrong) and now we're locked into a debate about the ligitimacy of the outcome.

There was a vote to hold a referendum and it passed. What the background was to the actions to be taken after the outcome is another matter, hence the challenge. Some argue the vote would be used to force the EU into reform; some that we should cut off all ties immediately. Now there'll probably be a vote to decide the way ahead.

A far better course of action would have been to arrange coinciding referenda with a couple of other EU states (the Slavic/Polak central ones would have been game) and then use the results to attack the EU hierarchy. Trouble is we had a large camp of essentially cuntish wankers playing on the racist tendencies of the proletariat so that would have been mistrusted as well.

At least the Conservative leadership race weeded out the grovelling little cunt-face and the maniac woman at an early stage. At least we're not American, eh?
Racing Teatray

Nice Guy Eddie wrote:

I'm all for the delay as I want to wait till 2018 as by then the European project may well be on its arse anyway and we'll be well placed to capitalise. Well capitalise on the shit storm that'll be left.


Well, after a fashion. That the Eurozone might anyway collapse was one the reasons I thought and think the 2016 referendum was an exercise in pointlessly short-sighted self-harm. The net impact on us is unlikely to be hugely different for us either way, with the exception that you can be 100% sure that the blame for the collapse will be laid squarely at the door of perfidious Albion. We could not have given the EU a more dream scapegoat if we tried!
PG

Racing Teatray wrote:
Point me to the bit of the 2015 Act whereby Parliament abdicated responsibility for implementing the referendum result. If it was there, the High Court would have not reached the decision it did.


But the court decision does not reference parliament "abdicating responsibilty". It uses arguments about Crown perogative v a commons vote. If it was clear from the 2015 act that Parliament t had the ultimate vote, the the decision would have aid that. It did not.

Anyway, we'll end up going round in circles if we carry this on. We'll have to agree to disagree, which is basically what all commercial and civil law is about - interpretation. If everyone agreed everything about non-criminal the law, the civil courts would be out of a job.  
Racing Teatray

PG wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Point me to the bit of the 2015 Act whereby Parliament abdicated responsibility for implementing the referendum result. If it was there, the High Court would have not reached the decision it did.


But the court decision does not reference parliament "abdicating responsibilty". It uses arguments about Crown perogative v a commons vote. If it was clear from the 2015 act that Parliament t had the ultimate vote, the the decision would have aid that. It did not.

Anyway, we'll end up going round in circles if we carry this on. We'll have to agree to disagree, which is basically what all commercial and civil law is about - interpretation. If everyone agreed everything about non-criminal the law, the civil courts would be out of a job.  


The 2015 Act didn't need to clear on something if it is the default position.

Besides Gina Miller expresses it well when she says "What we're saying is, very simply, you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about getting back a sovereign Parliament and being in control but at the same time then bypass it".
Stuntman

I am entirely with Racing on this one.  

The judges have interpreted the law in the way that I imagine that most lawyers would see it, and ruled accordingly.   The UK has deeply enshrined principles of Constitutional Law to cover matters like this to prevent abuses of power and maintain the separation of powers.

It may not be the most pragmatic or workable decision but I think the judges have made the correct decision.
Apex clipper

People voted..yes. In a demogracy.


We voted out....
Racing Teatray

Apex clipper wrote:
People voted..yes. In a demogracy.


We voted out....


Marvellous typo. The referendum was indeed a disgrace...
gooner

Racing Teatray wrote:
Apex clipper wrote:
People voted..yes. In a demogracy.


We voted out....


Marvellous typo. The referendum was indeed a disgrace...


To London based people like your good self it was. But a lot of the rest of the country disagree with you and have been revelling in the result for the last few months. This decision is going to ruffle a lot of feathers amongst those who thought they'd finally had their voices heard by the establishment only for another section of the establishment to piss all over their parade. The decision is legally the right one but that's not how large swathes of the country will see it. To many this is wealthy individuals in London (Gina Miller being the wife of a hedge fund manager) telling them what to do again.
Frank Bullitt

gooner wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Apex clipper wrote:
People voted..yes. In a demogracy.


We voted out....


Marvellous typo. The referendum was indeed a disgrace...


To London based people like your good self it was.


You can add this Cambridgeshire-based country dweller to the list, my retired British Steel employee father and my ex-British Leyland father-in-law to the list. I know it's a wonderful lexicon to say 'real people had power to their elbow' but in truth it was a fucking stupid thing for Cameron to do (mainly because he didn't think it through) and very little thought seems to have gone into a significant proportion of 'out' votes. Of course that is also true of many 'remain' votes but as my father-in-law would testify, being a sovereign state we always have the opportunity to vote 'out' in the future and the ramifications of stepping into the unknown would be a big risk so decided that without true clarity on the benefits it was best to vote 'remain' despite him personally feeling closer to 'out'.
the other ct

I'm not sure why people are getting so excited by this. Gina Miller may have been the leading claimant in the case and has become a lighting rod on social media and right wing press because she's a) a 'banker' b) a woman c) a remainer  and sadly d) non white.

But hardly anyone is talking about Deir Santos and the only other claimant listed on the judgment. He voted leave in the referendum and said: “I did not think it was right for the government to then just to bypass Parliament and try to take away my legal rights without consulting Parliament first... So just four days after the referendum, I started these proceedings. And I am grateful to the court for the result we have had today. This is a victory for Parliamentary democracy.”

I also heard MP John Mann speaking this morning, before the judgement, saying he campaigned for Brexit but wanted the High Court decision so he and Parliament could hold the Government to account.
Racing Teatray

You can add me to the claimants, after the fashion. I, both my sisters and my father made donations to the crowdfunded part. With no real expectation of winning, but simply because we all felt it was important to stand up for what you believe in.

I am sick and tired of hearing about the will of the people and the notion that remainers are out of touch with leavers. Given that there are very nearly as many of both, you could equally suggest that leavers are out of touch with remainers, not least because most of the sane parts of the rest of the world side with remain.

I am off to Africa tomorrow morning for a week and, going on past experience of stepping foot outside this country, I shall have to spend half my time having to justify and make excuses for something I despise to my very core to lots of politely incredulous foreign clients in order not to jeopardise business even more than it already has been.

All this rubbish about a whole world out there just gagging to deal with a wee free Britain is currently just that. Rubbish. And no amount of wishful thinking on Brexiteers' parts will change that. Because it takes two to tango and frankly right now nobody else fancies us.
Apex clipper

Racing Teatray wrote:
Apex clipper wrote:
People voted..yes. In a demogracy.


We voted out....


Marvellous typo. The referendum was indeed a disgrace...


You backed the horse that lost.. we've a strong identity. why shouldn't we thrive in this world market?

We're good at making war materials.
Apex clipper

You're missing Moscow ain't yer?
Apex clipper

Racing Teatray wrote:


I am sick and tired of hearing about the will of the people and the notion that remainers are out of touch with leavers. Given that there are very nearly as many of both, you could equally suggest that leavers are out of touch with remainers, not least because most of the sane parts of the rest of the world side with remain.



Whether there's a equal amount of both...It was voted by the UK..

What part are people struggling with?
Frank Bullitt

Apex clipper wrote:
Whether there's a equal amount of both...It was voted by the UK..

What part are people struggling with?


Finding the concept of the referendum incredulous to start if with?

That so far there isn't the merest hint that any of the things 'promised' by leave materialising

The lack of comprehension that ultimately there is a high chance we have all 'lost'

The rather thick nature of those who think the vote to leave being greater is a confirmation of it being the 'right' answer

3 months on there's not the slightest whiff of what 'out' looks like

None of the things many people were told would happen have materialised, nor do any of them look like materialising ever (never mind any time soon)

Voting to remain doesn't make you 'wrong', in the same was I wouldn't suggest anyone voting exit is 'wrong'

Still haven't seen a single viable argument, 3 months on, that justifies the largest change to the UK in multiple generations.

That's a few to start with.
Big Blue

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/new...e-to-whats-british-20161104116565

Also, loving the fact Boris left Westminster for the airport today in a 7 series. He was going to Berlin to explain why his wife went to school in Brussels.

The thing is home politics and administration just continues at present. Sure the financial markets are waving about like a wet t shirt on the washing line but we're all still paying taxes to the EU which they take then exclude the U.K. from various assemblies; there is not some huge influx of local entrepreneurs giving "jobs to the British"; the NHS is not suddenly awash with cash and you can arrive at A&E and one of the new army of British nurses will take you in to a British specialist within a couple of minutes of your arrival.

By the time the process following article 50 is over the entire social, political and economic scenery will be so changed from the 23rd June 2016 that no one will EVER know whether in or out was "better" for the UK. Oh and your coffee will still be being served by someone that has English as their second language while some bitter faced peasant appears in the press bemoaning the fact that the government has done nothing for them.
Frank Bullitt

Indeed, we have no way of living in a parallel universe to see what an 'in' vote would do, so as RT suggested the other day I'm going to take my lead from anti-European Unionists for he past 40+ years and blame everything negative that happens on Brexiteers. This will need no basis in logic or anything tangible, it will simply be the fault of 'Brexit' - every new law, every change in law, every time the UK economy isn't as successful as it could be, every time my local services are under pressure.

Actually, I probably won't because unlike such people for the past 40+ years, I might apply a few grey-cells to the matter.
Bob Sacamano

It may be that, legally, we are not part of the EU anyway:

Quote:
Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn't actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid.

In enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath's Government breached the constitutional convention which requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate. (Britain has no straightforward written constitution. But, the signing of the Common Market entrance documents was, without a doubt, a breach of the spirit of our constitution.)

Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'.

However, when it came to it Heath didn't have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.

Some MPs have subsequently claimed that `Parliament can do whatever it likes'. But that isn't true, of course. Parliament consists of a number of individual MPs who have been elected by their constituents to represent them. Political parties are not recognised in our system of government and Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution. We have (or are supposed to have) an elective democracy not an elective dictatorship. Parliament may, in law and in day to day issues, be the sovereign power in the state, but the electors are (in the words of Dicey's `Introduction for the Study of the Law of the Constitution' published in 1885) `the body in which sovereign power is vested'. Dicey goes on to point out that `in a political sense the electors are the most important part of, we may even say are actually, the sovereign power, since their will is under the present constitution sure to obtain ultimate obedience.' Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign'.

In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn't just another Act of Parliament. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.

Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.' Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.)

So, for example, Parliament was dissolved in 1831/2 to obtain the electorate's authority for the Reform Bill and again in 1910 following the Lord's rejection of the Liberal Finance Bill.

In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined'.

Wilson's referendum was inspired solely by the realisation that the consent of the electorate ought first to have been obtained before we joined the EEC. The lack of legitimacy of the European Communities Act brought about the decision by the incoming Prime Minister and Labour leadership that a referendum should be held in preference to yet another general election.

But, almost inevitably, the question asked in the referendum was also illegal since voters were asked: `Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?'

The problem was that since Heath had ignored the constitution duties and requirements of Parliament and had signed the entrance documents illegally the words `stay in' were deceptive. We couldn't stay in the EEC because, constitutionally, we had never entered. We couldn't enter the Common Market because Parliament did not have the right to sign away our sovereignty.

The referendum Wilson organised to remedy Heath's constitutional breach misled the electorate on a simple constitutional issue and was, therefore, itself illegal. (Wilson's referendum was passed after a good deal of very one-sided propaganda was used to influence public opinion. If the nation had voted against our `continued' membership of the EEC the political embarrassment for all politicians would have been unbearable.)

Attempts through the courts to annul our membership of the European Union on the basis that Parliament acted improperly have failed because Parliament, through its legal sovereignty, is the source of the law in Britain and the courts are, therefore, unable to challenge any Parliamentary Act.

Only Parliament can reclaim the legislative powers that Heath and subsequent Prime Ministers have handed to the European Union.

And so, only when Parliament is filled with honest politicians (not inevitably an oxymoron) who are not controlled by the private party system will the mistake be rectified and our membership annulled.

Britain's entry into the Common Market (later to be transformed into the EU) was also illegal for another reason. The Prime Minister who signed the entry documents, Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty.

Heath told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was a lie. Astonishingly, Heath said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth. Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association. But he was lying through his teeth. He knew that the original members of the EEC had a long-standing commitment to political union and the step by step creation of a European superstate.

Edward Heath received a substantial financial bribe for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. (Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official £25,000 for details of Harold Wilson's election tactics.) The reward of £35,000, paid personally to Heath and at the time a substantial sum of money, was handed over to him (in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize) for signing the Treaty of Rome.

Because of Heath's dishonesty we never actually joined the Common Market. And so all the subsequent treaties that were signed were illegal.

Britain's Treason Act (1351) is (at the time of writing) still in place. It states `that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm'.

And under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if `any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom.'

Our membership of the European Union will mean the end of the United Kingdom. So, since our membership of the European Union will doubtless `deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom' Britain's entry into the Common Market, under Edward Heath's signature, was null and void.

Heath committed an act of treason. He betrayed the Queen and he deliberately misled the British people.

Does any of this really matter to politicians?

Is there any hope that Parliament will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and restore sovereignty to the people? Not in the immediate future.

But the errors made by Heath and Wilson mean that when we want to leave the EU it will be very easy.

Because, officially, we never joined.

An independent British Parliament would simply have to pass one short Act of Parliament and give notice to the EU and we would be out of this accursed club.


http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html
Twelfth Monkey

I have no idea whether he's right or not, but the final sentence hardly makes him sound impartial.
Big Blue

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I have no idea whether he's right or not, but the final sentence hardly makes him sound impartial.


Hence we have to return the motion to the current House. One interpretation of the UK's membership is that we were never "in"; the assertion that a sovereign parliament can simply stick two immediate fingers up and leave tomorrow is another; that we need to agree with the EU how and when we leave yet another. That a plebiscite said the UK should leave the EU by a narrow majority is immaterial as it's the members of the house that have to decide. If anyone doubts this imagine if the MPs didn't vote on and agree things like the budget. Sure if it went to referendum each year we'd probably all be paying 0% tax but society would be in utter disarray as there would be no services at all. No law and order. No healthcare. No need to ensure clean water. Or sewerage.

As I said above we vote in a parliament to make the hard decisions for us. This one was an almighty fuck up caused by the party in power being split on the EU and effectively asking the public to solve their internal issues like some kind of demented marriage counsellor.

Parliament must vote.
Boxer6

Where do the experts come from on a Constitution which does not, actually, exist in written form?
PhilD

Boxer6 wrote:
Where do the experts come from on a Constitution which does not, actually, exist in written form?


Saying 'unwritten' is a bit misleading. It is written, just not in the the same place!
Big Blue

PhilD wrote:
Boxer6 wrote:
Where do the experts come from on a Constitution which does not, actually, exist in written form?


Saying 'unwritten' is a bit misleading. It is written, just not in the the same place!


Exactly. The Yanks have some yellowed scroll which says you can bear arms then refuse to speak after shooting your neighbor [sic]. The UK has various bits of legislation, parliamentary rules and legal precedent that make up a set of rules that are in effect a constitution.
Big Blue

Richard (ex-MB)

Bob Sacamano wrote:
It may be that, legally, we are not part of the EU anyway:

Quote:
Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn't actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid...


http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html



If that was true then why didn't these "many constitutional experts" simply apply to the court to have European Communities Act overturned in the last 43 years?

They either didn't have any confidence in their own argument or they tried and were shown to be wrong.
Twelfth Monkey

Big Blue wrote:
Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I have no idea whether he's right or not, but the final sentence hardly makes him sound impartial.


As I said above we vote in a parliament to make the hard decisions for us. This one was an almighty fuck up caused by the party in power being split on the EU and effectively asking the public to solve their internal issues like some kind of demented marriage counsellor.


Well-put.  I'd perhaps but 'woefully unqualified and emotionally vulnerable' rather than demented, but maybe you're right!
Frank Bullitt

That the Tory Party would ultimately rip itself to shreds over Europe was never really in doubt, that there would also be collateral damage for the rest of us shouldn't surprise but the extent to which they have shit on all our doorsteps has surprised me.
Grampa

Big Blue wrote:
This one was an almighty fuck up caused by the party in power being split on the EU


I suspect it was as much about trying to halt the march of UKIP - on the assumption that the vote would overwhelmingly be for remain.
Nice Guy Eddie

Frank Bullitt wrote:
That the Tory Party would ultimately rip itself to shreds over Europe was never really in doubt, that there would also be collateral damage for the rest of us shouldn't surprise but the extent to which they have shit on all our doorsteps has surprised me.


Don't speak for everyone, I know a number of folk who are delighted at the outcome and will take the short term 'pain'.

Good tactics from the Tories, if they can get out of this mess and still remain the party of choice they really have done fabulously well.

Kind of sad how pathetic all the other parties are at present. Tim Fallon was on telly a few weeks ago and the missus had not a clue who he was. Honey G's more recognisable.

They way some remainers go on, it was only the elderly, racist and stupid who voted leave and your taking a position of how right you were all along. We don't know the long term effects of Brexit, we haven't even entered Brexit so lets just get our heads down and work a little harder and we should come through alright. Could we have done without the hassle, yes but the public have spoken and you take the result. As a remainer , I find the weeny attitude of a lot of people rather tiresome and the arrogance totally unfounded.
Bob Sacamano

Grampa wrote:
Big Blue wrote:
This one was an almighty fuck up caused by the party in power being split on the EU


I suspect it was as much about trying to halt the march of UKIP - on the assumption that the vote would overwhelmingly be for remain.


I think that anyone who had taken the slightest heed of the sustained anti-EU campaign in the Daily Mail, Express, Sun etc would have knocked that assumption on the head.
Frank Bullitt

Did anybody listen to Suzanne Evans on R4 today and her views on the judiciary?  What a very, very scary world that portrays.
Big Blue

Don't get me wrong, like many on here I was alive before we went into to EEC and survived and I can see that we just need to get on with the day to day world of life regardless of politics as we commoners have done for generations.

At least my grandkids will have something to learn in History lessons in years to come.

Who am kidding? The world will be annihilated in 12 months when whichever loon takes the White House is given the nuclear codes.
Nice Guy Eddie

Ah, well there is the whole in the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit.

Things more scary
Trump on the red button
Meteors headed to earth
ISIS
The Russians are coming
Mass movements of people outside the EU
Lack of Food to feed the world
Population growth
Er, Jeremy Corbin
Big Blue

Yep. That's about where I am. Even in the family stakes I will point out that foreigners have lived in the UK and Brits in Europe for longer than the EU has existed so not too worrying either.
Tim

Frank Bullitt wrote:
Did anybody listen to Suzanne Evans on R4 today and her views on the judiciary?  What a very, very scary world that portrays.


Missed that but there was some old boy on Any Answers on Saturday and his thoughts on the matter could be summed up as - "We'll just keep sacking judges and politicians until we get the ones that give the answers we want" with 'we' being Brexiteers.
Big Blue

Tim wrote:
......there was some old boy on Any Answers on Saturday and his thoughts on the matter could be summed up as - "We'll just keep sacking judges and politicians until we get the ones that give the answers we want" with 'we' being Brexiteers.


Ah the power of democracy eh? Anyone fancy inviting comment from Mugabe as a more measured voice of reason? Whilst I accept that "Brexit is Brexit" whatever the fuck that entails (a lot more than simply trying to deport a few hundred thousand Europeans at best guess!) I am glad that the way I think and voted means I will never be aligned with cunts like that.
JohnC

Big Blue wrote:
Ah the power of democracy eh? Anyone fancy inviting comment from Mugabe as a more measured voice of reason? Whilst I accept that "Brexit is Brexit" whatever the fuck that entails (a lot more than simply trying to deport a few hundred thousand Europeans at best guess!) I am glad that the way I think and voted means I will never be aligned with cunts like that.


+1

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum