Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 14:54:21 GMT
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Brexit.
Oct 29, 2016 11:24:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Oct 29, 2016 11:24:52 GMT
Suppose there was no promise of inducements to Nissan, just a quiet reassurance along the lines of "Don't worry, we're going through the motions to avoid upsetting the swivellies, but we all know it's going to fall apart before we get near the exit door. The public don't really want it, but it'll be better if we wait for them to tell us than if we tell them we're not going to go through with it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 13:20:25 GMT
Major decisions are simply not made in these timescales. So someone deciding to build or not deciding to build should not be taken as a reflection of Brexit, in either direction.
Brexit may rarely cause delays in decisions, but is not likely to change them at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Nov 3, 2016 10:23:48 GMT
High Court has just ruled that the government can't trigger Article 50 without Parliament's consent.
How's the majority looking, Theresa?
#BollocksToBrexit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 11:30:22 GMT
Oh this is just going to get worse and worse, farce upon farce.
Sometimes it is more important that things go away than it is that the best decision is made.
Though I do like #BollocksToBrexit
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
Member is Online
|
Post by Rob on Nov 3, 2016 12:30:17 GMT
And the leavers will start complaining that's for sure. But using a 17th century law to bypass parliament is undemocratic. And one of the thing the leavers wanted was for powers to come back to the UK parliament from Brussels.
I hope the appeal fails. I can't see the problem debating the leave process anyway - it's just leave. We can't negotiate any deals until we actually leave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 12:36:04 GMT
This law would have been brought to court no matter what. The referendum merely decided which side would bring it.
Hypocrisy, stupidity, fear, gang mentality and ignorance - politics today. They've always been there of course, but they've never stood alone before.
|
|
|
Post by crankcase on Nov 3, 2016 12:55:23 GMT
After it goes to the Supreme Court in December, I imagine it will go to the European Court.
And I thought we didn't have an irony industry left.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Nov 3, 2016 13:12:24 GMT
It will only go to the ECJ if the UK Supreme Court decides it should. There is very little chance of the appeal being won by the Government given the strength of the judgement today. The Government can not appeal to the ECJ, it is a matter for the UK Supreme Court judges only.
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Nov 3, 2016 13:20:23 GMT
It will only go to the ECJ if the UK Supreme Court decides it should. There is very little chance of the appeal being won by the Government given the strength of the judgement today. The Government can not appeal to the ECJ, it is a matter for the UK Supreme Court judges only. ...indeed, and as it involves the interpretation of national law which isn't (AFAICS) in any way affected by the ECHR, or any other relevant overriding European Legislation we've signed up to, then it is very, very, unlikely to be referred (since there appears to be no basis on which any European Court could/would rule). Anyhow, that would appear to prove we've "taken back our country". .....oh, just a minute, we haven't left yet, have we......
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
Member is Online
|
Post by Rob on Nov 3, 2016 14:13:56 GMT
But we'd all find it really ironic if it did go to the European Court of Justice I know I would find it amusing. I'd prefer they didn't appeal though.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Nov 3, 2016 15:52:23 GMT
I'll bet there are a few eyes swivelling and a few heads spinning elsewhere on the internet.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Post by WDB on Nov 3, 2016 16:41:49 GMT
Oh, don't you doubt it! Suzanne Evans wants to fire all the judges for doing their job; Nigel Farage is off again with his thinly veiled threats of mob violence if he doesn't get his way; and the Daily Mail is outraged that one judge is gay and another charged for giving legal advice to the public sector. Oh and Jacob Rees-Mogg... well, he would, wouldn't he?
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
Member is Online
|
Post by Rob on Nov 3, 2016 17:57:58 GMT
If we allow royal prerogative to be used this time what is stopping it being used again?
I'd like to see a law passing that means this can never be used.
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Nov 3, 2016 18:15:26 GMT
It will only go to the ECJ if the UK Supreme Court decides it should. There is very little chance of the appeal being won by the Government given the strength of the judgement today. The Government can not appeal to the ECJ, it is a matter for the UK Supreme Court judges only. ...indeed, and as it involves the interpretation of national law which isn't (AFAICS) in any way affected by the ECHR, or any other relevant overriding European Legislation we've signed up to, then it is very, very, unlikely to be referred (since there appears to be no basis on which any European Court could/would rule). Anyhow, that would appear to prove we've "taken back our country". .....oh, just a minute, we haven't left yet, have we...... It's not, so far as I can see, a European Convention on Human Rights/Strasbourg matter. However it involves the meaning of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty so would be an issue for the European Court of Justice which rules on matters of EU law
|
|