The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[unbeliever]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[L00b]

This I don't understand. With a result of 8:3, surely there was a non-zero probability of the government winning the case?

There was no chance of the government winning.

 

I told you as much weeks and months ago. And invited you not to take my posts as gospel, but to consider independent opinions and articles which I linked at the time.

 

Take Obelix' point: the dissenting is not for -or to the effect of- reversing of the SC's decision, it is about a perceived defect in the scope of the deliberations (i.e. 3 of the 11 considered that the SC did not look into enough ins and outs, and refused to back the SC decision on that basis: this is different from 'the other 8 are wrong, Parliament should not be given a say').

 

EDIT after your edit:

Clearly they did manage to persuade the other 3 already. So how could it be impossible?

They did not.

[chalga]

Amendments to the Brexit bill incoming,Labour is planning to table some,and the SNP is looking at bringing 50 in.

[unbeliever]

There was no chance of the government winning.

 

I told you as much weeks and months ago. And invited you not to take my posts as gospel, but to consider independent opinions and articles which I linked at the time.

 

Take Obelix' point: the dissenting is not for -or to the effect of- reversing of the SC's decision, it is about a perceived defect in the scope of the deliberations (i.e. 3 of the 11 considered that the SC did not look into enough ins and outs, and refused to back the SC decision on that basis: this is different from 'the other 8 are wrong, Parliament should not be given a say').

 

So they voted the other way on a technicality.

It's all technicality this stuff anyway. Parliament has already made if very clear (apparently in not quite the right way) that they approve the triggering of article 50.

If the government has persuaded another 3 judges to do the same, they'd have won. Surely. How can this be incorrect?

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2017 at 11:19 ----------

 

Amendments to the Brexit bill incoming,Labour is planning to table some,and the SNP is looking at bringing 50 in.

 

Yes it's an opportunity for the remainers to make a fuss. They won't get anywhere.

[Obelix]

There was no chance of the government winning.

 

I told you as much weeks and months ago. And invited you not to take my posts as gospel, but to consider independent opinions and articles which I linked at the time.

 

Take Obelix' point: the dissenting is not for -or to the effect of- reversing of the SC's decision, it is about a perceived defect in the scope of the deliberations (i.e. 3 of the 11 considered that the SC did not look into enough ins and outs, and refused to back the SC decision on that basis: this is different from 'the other 8 are wrong, Parliament should not be given a say').

 

EDIT after your edit:

They did not.

 

Let me guess - someone thinks a dissenting viewpoint means that they sided with the Govt?

 

I've news for that position - read the dissenters opinions first.... two of them consider that the membership of the EU can be revoked (but not the membership of the community act...) and one reckons that the decision didn't go far enough and more legislation will be required further down the line....

 

Basically 11-0 if you want a hard brexit. That's against hard brexit for the slow of understanding.