http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/po...uling-12120738
Printable View
Seems a reasonable position to me.
Unbelievable that our nation's leaders didn't foresee, or plan for, this eventuality.
Was it ever put to "the people" that their vote would effectively be non-binding?
If you ran a business with this level of planning, you'd be out of business fairly quickly
Well, you would wouldn't you ? RJK. Everyone now on the bandwagon trying to overturn a majority referendum vote to leave the EU, and some woman who owns a hedge fund company not acting on what the country voted for but acting so that she can make more money, stinks she is not even from the UK :thumbup:
Fuk sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
It seems a sensible standpoint to me.
I suggest you read up what this decision actually means (not in the express or mail).Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
seems perfectly sensible to me. surely Parliament and not the government is the ultimate authority in the UK, which is what Brexiters wanted? not even the Supreme Court can overturn primary legislation.
all that is being asked is for Parliament to give the Government consent. If we did not have this then MPs may as well stay in their constituencies on election night and forget about holding the government to account. Are Brexiters really advocating 5 year dictatorships?
Some of the independent judiciary have ruled that it would be illegal for the government to go for brexit without having a vote in parliament first - based on the terms that they set out in the first place.
Almost every mp has come out and said that they wouldn't be voting against brexit, even if they were remain before.
Who is that, then? It's certainly not someone from UKIP or the Tories, that's a certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninianclark
If we want Sovreignty and the right to rule ourselves, then we must abide by a High Court ruling. It seems the Brexiteers really do have the hump about all this , well they should fall in line with the ruling of the courts of the country they want to be independent of the EU. It doesn't say we can't or won't come out , just that we need more time to act of]n the referendum vote result.
As a country it would be foolish to rush in to a quick decision, accepted it's been 4 months already but the Government don't appear to have a plan at all.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiff55
Parliament and the 4 regions also need to decide what form of Brexit eventually happens. This is far, far too important to be left to a sub committee of far right Tories.
What is to my mind quite rediculous is for these people to believe that the government under this ruling must tell the house exactly what deal they are going to go for before actioning clause 50.
There can be no negotiation with the EU on anything until after clause 50 is activated so this would be impossible. Also if the government in parliament said exactly what they intended to do it would give the likes of Junkers in the EU all the time they needed to make sure we don't get what we want.
To my mind all the high court says is that the government must get the authority of parliament to action clause 50.
so that is all the vote should be about.
The time to debate the conditions will be after the government has had time to meet officially with their EU adversaries and hammer out a framework agreement, then parliament can discuss it and the government can go back and deal with the particulars.
There has never been any argument that once a deal is truck it will be fully explained and debated in parliament and that the MPs will get a vote on whether to accept the deal or not.
It is then that the deal should be agreed or rejected.
I can see no way the government can tell parliament what they intend to get before they have even tried, and no discussions can take place before clause 50 is activated.
How can MPs demand the right to have a say in the agreement if the EU, knowing our position just effectively laughs at what they voted for and says piss off?
It is arse about face.
Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiff55
They don't have a plan.
They never had a plan.
Either unimaginable arrogance (that they would win the vote) or unimaginable incompetence.
No wonder Cameron fecked off.
The problem is that our nation's leaders didn't stick around to act on the vote, despite assurances to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by TH63
Do you think the Supreme Court serves any purpose? If so, what purpose do you think it serves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
99% of the people who are saying that this legal challenge was simply about asserting the primacy of Parliament is lying. They were and are hoping that it will mean that the verdict expressed at the referendum will be ignored and we will remain in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I thought one of the things the brexiteers wanted was to be able to pass our own laws,the first time a law is made they dont want it:shrug:
I don't think you're right there. I haven't heard a single person saying that they want to reverse the decision of the referendum. Not without another referendum anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
If anything it will at least make the politicians nail their colours to the mast and stand by any decision they make, then if they cock it up they can at least be held accountable for it afterwards.
Yesterday, you were (quite rightly, I thought) objecting to suggestions that Leave voters were thick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
Maybe it's time to stop the generalising on both sides?
imho Cameron for fecked off one one or all of the following reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
1. Having nailed his colours to the mast he took the result as a vote of no confidence
2. He didn't expect to lose so had no plan whatsoever of how to deal with it
3. He didn't want to be the one that had to implement a policy he didn't agree with
4. He couldn't be arsed dealing with the inevitable shitstorm
Exactly, this woman is doing this because when we come out of the EU, she will not make so much money, greedy sod that she is, why doesn't she bugger off back to Guiana, where she comes from, and let us natives of this land get what we voted for:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
Shouldn't you be more angry with the judges? :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
No, if she and the "hairdresser chap" had not gone to court then the judges would not have made their ruling, having said that these judges live in their own little world, and have no common sense whatsoever, and who is to say that their ruling is correct,it is all down to interpretation, personally I think that the government is correct regarding their own view on it:thumbup:
It's all too complicated for me so for that reason I'm out
I'm mean in
No out
Oh i give up
When she was born, Guiana was British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Regardless of what her motives are, if there wasn't a legal case for it the judges wouldn't have agreed with her.
We are having brexit, but it will be one debated and voted on in parliament as it should be, not one concocted by right wing Tories however they see fit.
Anyone thinking these right wing Tories are looking to save the workers from the pernicious eu which will sell them out in favour of big business needs to take a step back and think again.
These same Tories are also looking at reducing the corporation tax to 10% - something which would cost the government budget 350m a week (where have I heard that number before?!). And you know that the right of the Tory party would not bat an eyelid at cutting public services in order to pay for that.
So yes it is good that we have had this court ruling, as otherwise we are just letting some people with fringe political views have a free hand on things that will effect millions.
If you don't want Parliament sovereignty and think that someone unelected should be able to do what they want, perhaps you should have voted to stay in the EU. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
butt flaps
I have heard dozens of Remain MPs interviewed about this in the last day and only one (Ken Clarke - Tory) sais he would vote against triggering Article 50. Everyone else I heard (Labour and Tories - missed the other party reps) said they would vote for Article 50. They just want parliamentary sovereignty upheld and the broad outlines of the government plan (which doesn't exist) explained. All this talk about not revealing the Article 50 negotiating position is total nonsense. To start with the government hasn't been able to reconcile all the different views on its own side yet (at least 3 of them: No 10, No 11 and the 3 Brexiteers and even there Johnson is off on a loony tune all of his own). Secondly they will either try to retain access to the single market or not (most Tory MPs want to if possible with only a few on the right fringe wanting to stay out) but they know the price of free movement cannot be sold to 'Out' voters. That is something they should come clean on to parliament before the MPs vote. Then they want it all in the negotiations and won't get it. They want the single market, they don't want free movement, and they can't have both. Just how bad the 'best deal' will be won't be apparent until the negotiations are well under way and won't be discussed in detail by MPs until the end of the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
The entire process is a cock up and shows the disunity and incompetence of the government. The court judgement is necessary and should have been anticipated. Who cares who brought the case - it did a service of clarifying the legal position and stopped the executive running away with the whole process without any accountability. The devil will be in the layers of detail.
Um, no, did you actually read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninianclark
He doesn't say anywhere that we should reverse the decision. Quite the opposite. Just we should follow the correct legal process.
I'm not a fan of Carwyn Jones but he isn't the one that 'seems to be unable to accept.... Parliamentary sovereignty etc'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninianclark
And the 'starting point' is no more and no less than a decision that the UK will leave the EU. Nothing about timescales, terms, new controls or replacement trade and financial arrangements. Everyone thinks they know what the Brexit vote meant - but there as many versions as there are people with an opinion - and at least four different views in Theresa May's cabinet!
I would prefer to live in a country where the government has to abide by the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Otherwise, Teresa May can come round your house, have her heavies hold you down and piss in your mouth, you want that to happen do you?
This sums up quite neatly a problem with the referendum and the Leave campaigns inaction against arseholes, whilst only a minority, the nasty xenophobic ***** feel like everyone agrees with them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Oh well that is a game changer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Do you think the government should have to abide by the law? This is really simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninianclark
As a leave voter who passionately believes brexit will be a roaring success I find the hysteria around yesterdays decision to be a little bit embarrassing. I think parliament should absolutely have the right to vote on brexit, I voted for brexit, not any brexit. I want the best deal for this country and parliamentary scrutiny is going to help that, not hinder it.
If it's a good deal and Mrs May and her team have done a good job then the MPs dare not vote it down, they dare not go against the will of the people (unless they are Scottish or Cockneys). If it's a shit deal by voting it down they are doing us a favour and it gives the government an opportunity to iron out those differences and come to some sort of compromise with the naysayers.
Apart from a few dissenting voices the vast majority of prominent remain campaigners have come out and said they may not want Brexit but it must happen. Brexit will go ahead in spite of the efforts of ball washing lawyers.
Good postQuote:
Originally Posted by Bluebird since 1948
My view is that the average man in the street is unqualified to have made this decision in the first place.
Whilst this ruling was instigated by a smal number of people, another, relatively small number of people whipped up enough public hysteria to have a referendum in the first place.
What's next?
A referendum on the death penalty?
A referendum on fiscal policy?
But you're also assuming that Europe is the only issue. It's not. Unfortunately because of the referendum and its aftermath, most other issues have been totally forgotten. If there was a snap general election held, it wouldn't solely be on membership or how to leave the EU. There are other, more important things going on in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninianclark