The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[unbeliever]

And there we have it. Supreme court upholds decision that ONLY parliament can invoke article 50.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-38723261

 

Ruled 8:3 so not even close. Nevermind Unbeliever.

 

 

Okay. I don't mind. Parliament will approve it with minimal fuss.

I recall one of my opponents said it would certainly be 11:0 and I only stated that the legality was not clear and therefore there would be a split decision.

So this doesn't really support the idea that it was obvious. Which is all I was saying. I may have hoped for a different result, but I was not expecting it.

[Jacktari]

Okay. I don't mind. Parliament will approve it with minimal fuss.

I recall one of my opponents said it would certainly be 11:0 and I only stated that the legality was not clear and therefore there would be a split decision.

So this doesn't really support the idea that it was obvious. Which is all I was saying. I may have hoped for a different result, but I was not expecting it.

 

You were expecting proclamation to take precedence over parliament?

[Gamston]

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.

There is nothing for anyone to rage about. Let's see how the MPs vote. My guess is Article 50 will be triggered before the end of March, this year.

[unbeliever]

You were expecting proclamation to take precedence over parliament?

 

It was my judgement that parliament had already given consent by calling the referendum and furthermore that foreign treaties are a matter for the executive. It seems that only 3 of the 11 judges generally agreed with me. 3 is not zero so I'm clearly not crazy.

That's hardly a slam-dunk but they stopped short of putting insane obstacles in front of the brexit process so I'm okay with it.

[chalga]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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'