|
Post by tyrednexited on Nov 3, 2016 18:21:58 GMT
...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 ...but I would contend that it doesn't. The question under consideration is how, under UK law and 'constitution', Article 50 can be invoked; not what Article 50 means (which would rightly be a matter for the European Court).
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Brexit.
Nov 3, 2016 18:48:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Nov 3, 2016 18:48:42 GMT
But isn't the 'constitutional requirements' stipulation of Article 50 part of UK law because of a treaty concluded by the EU? That could create the case for the ECJ to rule on it.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
Member is Online
|
Post by Rob on Nov 3, 2016 19:02:53 GMT
I think it probably is WDB. So if the appeal to the Supreme Court fails will the government go to the ECJ? That would be ironic
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Nov 3, 2016 19:11:46 GMT
But isn't the 'constitutional requirements' stipulation of Article 50 part of UK law because of a treaty concluded by the EU? That could create the case for the ECJ to rule on it. I can't see how the wording "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"
...gives any scope for the European courts to intervene in the matter. Any contravention of our constitution needs to be dealt with under our constitutional rules (which is exactly what is happening).
|
|
|
Post by harleyman on Nov 3, 2016 21:51:09 GMT
I've made little comment on this subject either in here or in "t'other place". I cannot, however, resist noting the irony of the Brexiteers whining about the courts upholding the sovereign right of Parliament to decide on Article 50 implementation.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't "reclaiming the sovereignty of the British Parliament" one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign?
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Nov 3, 2016 21:57:26 GMT
I've made little comment on this subject either in here or in "t'other place". I cannot, however, resist noting the irony of the Brexiteers whining about the courts upholding the sovereign right of Parliament to decide on Article 50 implementation. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't "reclaiming the sovereignty of the British Parliament" one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign? ...and, as I alluded to earlier, 'tis a double-irony because we didn't have to exit (we haven't yet) to get back that sovereignty (that they now don't like).
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
Member is Online
|
Post by Rob on Nov 3, 2016 22:43:19 GMT
It is indeed ironic and makes it harder to argue against the ruling. Presumably if the Supreme Court over turns the judgement there is scope for this then to go to the European Courts? But I can't see any argument for over turning it. It's what those voting the referendum wanted to - parliament to take back power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 7:32:13 GMT
The Telegraph having a real moan this morning saying the judges have taken against the will of the people.
Without rehashing the whole debate, I do wonder if people knew the probable outcome of the referendum, the vote would have been different (for that we can blame Cameron) and now we have our judges making decisions based on our laws (not European ones) they don't like it...
Ironic.....and stupid.
It is the one thing I want back - the ability of Parliament and Courts to make and rule on our laws, not someone else's - otherwise Brexit is simply stupid.
|
|
|
Post by hobbit on Nov 4, 2016 10:12:46 GMT
The "remain campaign" has very subtlety twisted the "brexiteer's" ideology and turned it against them to get their own way in the end. All Mrs May can realistically do is "wring her hands in frustration" and appear to be trying to uphold the majority vote in line with democracy,while all the time she is virtually powerless and being back-stabbed by all and sundry! - The light is shining brightly, the common-man is being stuffed again by the rich and powerful. I think that in the long run the "remainers" have won, we will never be allowed to leave, their greed will never let us.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Brexit.
Nov 4, 2016 10:15:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Nov 4, 2016 10:15:38 GMT
The solution has been in plain sight all the while. I had a look yesterday at the Conservatives' 2015 manifesto. www.conservatives.com/ShareTheFactsThere, in white on red, it says Once we have finished renegotiating, we will give you the final say with an in-out referendum in 2017.So this year has been just a preliminary.
|
|
|
Post by hobbit on Nov 4, 2016 10:36:25 GMT
Pages 74/75 of the Manifesto read slightly different to me!
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Nov 4, 2016 10:49:37 GMT
hobbit, your interpretation of the events is nonsense.
WDB, the renegotiation you refer to was Cameron's 'deal', which he negotiated before the referendum was held. Which should have been seen as a good deal, adding to an already extensively opted-out position which we held within the EU. One which we seem to be furiously negotiating our way back towards, under the banner of 'brexit'. We should have just stuck with what we had, we're not going to be anywhere significantly different after 'brexit' and rank Europhobes will still be moaning and bitching like the stuck pigs they are.
|
|
|
Post by commerdriver on Nov 4, 2016 11:07:48 GMT
For goodness sake guys & gals lets not go down the name calling etc route, leave that to other places and people.
Brexit / remain has always been a close call and a lot of people are going to be hacked off whichever way it ends up and the more we wrangle and the longer it takes the worse it will get for everyone, I wish there was a way round it but I don't see one.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Post by WDB on Nov 4, 2016 11:08:47 GMT
They do and they make the whole thing a bit of a muddle. One headline says 'We will give you a say...' and in two other places it promises to 'respect' or 'honour' the result. But it doesn't (being mischievous, I know) say how they'll do that, or that there'll only be one referendum. They could 'honour' the result by preparing an exit settlement and putting that to the final vote in 2017, all within what the manifesto offers.
Meanwhile, don't weep for 'the common man', who stands to lose more than most if this goes ahead. Seama Kotecha's R4 voxpop in Barnsley (Today, from 1h14) was gobsmacking. These what's coming over and claiming benefits...it's making a mockery of our country... I don't really understand it altogether but I voted out. I just wanted out, plain and simple. I thought we were already out and I can't understand why.
It's easy to laugh at the uneducated and that's not my point. They've been sold a simple and undeliverable solution to a complex problem, and the shame lies with the Sun, the Mail, the Express and those who drive them for giving them something to hate.
|
|
|
Post by hobbit on Nov 4, 2016 11:10:50 GMT
>> We should have just stuck with what we had, we're not going to be anywhere significantly different after 'brexit'
So if you think that is the case, why did the Remainers feel compelled to take it to the Courts?
|
|