The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[chalga 10]

I'm just waiting for some of the people who voted Leave because of "parliamentary sovereignty" to start raging because some judges have agreed that parliament is sovereign.

 

Indeed it is,and an early victory for Brexit and taking our country back,the EU cannot start to negotiate our exit from the EU without the say so of the UK Parliament,so proving that our laws are sovereign.

[Obelix 11]

Indeed it is,and an early victory for Brexit and taking our country back,the EU cannot start to negotiate our exit from the EU without the say so of the UK Parliament,so proving that our laws are sovereign.

 

So in other words Parliament was sovereign, always has been currently is and always will be.

 

So please lets not have any more guff about "taking our country back" you never gave it away in the first place.....

[L00b 441]

:help: ... I meant the process of leaving the EU.

That's not the context of apelike's post set out by El Cid's post, to which he was replying.

The UK couldn't have left the EU on 24th June 2016.

Correct, and still can't now, until and unless Parliament votes on the matter.

 

This was entirely predictable based on known constitutional law and precedent, and so duly predicted,

(i) pre-referendum,

(ii) post referendum,

(iii) pre Gina Miller case at the HC and

(iv) pre Government Appeal case at the SC.

 

I hope you take some solace from May p*****g away taxpayer's money on these proceedings in the name of Tory party politics. I don't

[unbeliever 10]

Some legislation clearing up the division of authority between the legislature and the executive is probably called for. This kind of mess reeks of bad law-making.

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2017 at 10:28 ----------

 

That's not the context of apelike's post set out by El Cid's post, to which he was replying.

Correct, and still can't now, until and unless Parliament votes on the matter.

 

This was entirely predictable based on known constitutional law and precedent, and so duly predicted,

(i) pre-referendum,

(ii) post referendum,

(iii) pre Gina Miller case at the HC and

(iv) pre Government Appeal case at the SC.

 

I hope you take some solace from May p*****g away taxpayer's money on these proceedings in the name of Tory party politics. I don't

 

You might have a point if it was 11:0. It was 8:3. So clearly the law here is was subjective.

[L00b 441]

Some legislation clearing up the division of authority between the legislature and the executive is probably called for.

This SC decision did precisely that.

 

Unless you want the UK to stop being a common law jurisdiction and become a civil law jurisdiction like our European neighbours?

You might have a point if it was 11:0. It was 8:3. So clearly the law here is was subjective.

Says the "winner by 4%"

 

You're not strong on legal points and due process, unbeliever. That's not a criticism, just an objective statement based on our (ample) exchanges of the past 6+ months, and not one I'd hold against you...nor one I want to take advantage of over you. So don't tempt me

[chalga 10]

Wait while Trump sees her on Friday,'what kind of garbage is that supposed to be,I just sign a document and everything changes to what I want'

[unbeliever 10]

This SC decision did precisely that.

 

Unless you want the UK to stop being a common law jurisdiction and become a civil law jurisdiction like our European neighbours?

Says the "winner by 4%"

 

You're not strong on legal points and due process, unbeliever. That's not a criticism, just an objective statement based on our (ample) exchanges of the past 6+ months, and not one I'd hold against you...nor one I want to take advantage of over you. So don't tempt me

 

Law confuses me. And I understand general relativity and quantum field theory.

But I trust rule of law to keep us from tyranny, and if this is the law then so be it.

I'd like law to be clearer at the statute level so we don't have this ambiguity, but I suppose it generally works.

 

The decision to leave the EU was not obvious either. I accept a 4% result (I would have taken a margin of 1 vote either way as I said repeatedly throughout the campaign). I would also have accepted a 6:5 result in the supreme court.

I'm quite consistent on these things.

This is the law now. I think the legislature should review it and make it clear either way for future similar questions. Judges are not elected. When judges change/clarify the meaning of the law such that the legislature find it different to what it thought it was, that seems a very good reason to go back to the statutes and try again. Surely without that, there's a possibility that future supreme court members could reverse it.

Edited January 24, 2017 by unbeliever

[Obelix 11]

This SC decision did precisely that.

 

Unless you want the UK to stop being a common law jurisdiction and become a civil law jurisdiction like our European neighbours?

Says the "winner by 4%"

 

You're not strong on legal points and due process, unbeliever. That's not a criticism, just an objective statement based on our (ample) exchanges of the past 6+ months, and not one I'd hold against you...nor one I want to take advantage of over you. So don't tempt me

 

It's interesting if you read the dissenting views on the judgement too. They don't reject the entirey of the courts decision, just tweaking around the side of it. Indeed one of the dissenters appears to consider that the courts have not considered the issue widely enough and is dissenting beyond the courts opposition to the Govt....

 

"Unsurprisingly, given the unprecedented nature of the undertaking there are no easy answers. In the end, in respectful disagreement with the majority, I have reached the clear conclusion that the Divisional Court took too narrow a view of the constitutional principles at stake."

[Gamston 10]

That's not the context of apelike's post set out by El Cid's post, to which he was replying.

Correct, and still can't now, until and unless Parliament votes on the matter.

 

This was entirely predictable based on known constitutional law and precedent, and so duly predicted,

(i) pre-referendum,

(ii) post referendum,

(iii) pre Gina Miller case at the HC and

(iv) pre Government Appeal case at the SC.

 

I hope you take some solace from May p*****g away taxpayer's money on these proceedings in the name of Tory party politics. I don't

No worries if you didn't understand my point about the time issue.

 

The devolution issue regarding the UK leaving the EU has been settled, therefore your point about taxpayer's money being wasted is very weak to be fair.

[unbeliever 10]

It's interesting if you read the dissenting views on the judgement too. They don't reject the entirey of the courts decision, just tweaking around the side of it. Indeed one of the dissenters appears to consider that the courts have not considered the issue widely enough and is dissenting beyond the courts opposition to the Govt....

 

I'm not sure I'd understand them.

[L00b 441]

No worries if you didn't understand my point about the time issue.

I understood your non sequitur just fine. It's still a non sequitur just the same

The devolution issue regarding the UK leaving the EU has been settled, therefore your point about taxpayer's money being wasted is very weak to be fair.

"Devolution"?

 

I'm not sure what logical link you're making between the SC's decision as it relates to devolved assemblies, and my point about No.10 wasting resources and taxpayers' money fighting legal cases it couldn't hope to win.

 

If it's to the effect of "it was worth spending the resources and money to get certainty about the constitutional relevance of Holyrood, Stormont and the Senedd to Brexit", I fear you are sadly mistaken: there was never any doubt, that these devolved assemblies would have no say over Parliament's about Brexit. They're not sovereign over/from Parliament, they hold their respective powers from Parliament

Edited January 24, 2017 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

I understood your non sequitur just fine. It's still a non sequitur just the same

"Devolution"?

 

I'm not sure what logical link you're making between the SC's decision as it relates to devolved assemblies, and my point about No.10 wasting resources and taxpayers' money fighting legal cases it can't hope to win.

 

If it's to the effect of "it was worth spending the resources and money to get certainty about the constitutional relevance of Holyrood, Stormont and the Senedd to Brexit", I fear you are sadly mistaken: there was never any doubt, that these devolved assemblies would have no say over Parliament's about Brexit.

 

 

This I don't understand. With a result of 8:3, surely there was a non-zero probability of the government winning the case? They only needed to persuade 3 judges out of the 8 to win. Was that impossible? Clearly they did manage to persuade the other 3 already. So how could it be impossible?

Edited January 24, 2017 by unbeliever