The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[sgtkate]

Lib Dems are planning to propose a second referendum.

 

Even I, a hard remainer, don't support this. It's just ridiculous. Let's just get on with destroying our country. There's a military phrase perfect for this scenario:

 

'Fail fast'

 

Simply means if you are going to mess up, then mess up quickly so you've more time to fix it.

[unbeliever]

"More is lost by indecision than wrong decision. Indecision is the thief of opportunity. It will steal you blind."

Marcus Tullius Cicero

[andyofborg]

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

 

that would, for all the reasons we explored the other day, and incredibly bad thing.

 

if you really feel you want to go down that rabbit hole then it needs to be done properly which means a proper constitution which amongst other things clearly defines and limits the powers of the executive, legislature (including the devolved ones) and the judiciary.

 

This kind of mess reeks of bad law-making

 

Parliament is quite good at that. You would think that they would do much better given the amount of money we spend on it and it is their job.

 

Many laws are poorly drafted laws passed in a hurry with nowhere near enough debate or considerations of the consequences or edge cases.

 

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

 

you will need to read the dissenting opinions to see the hows and whys.

[unbeliever]

that would, for all the reasons we explored the other day, and incredibly bad thing.

 

if you really feel you want to go down that rabbit hole then it needs to be done properly which means a proper constitution which amongst other things clearly defines and limits the powers of the executive, legislature (including the devolved ones) and the judiciary.

 

 

 

Parliament is quite good at that. You would think that they would do much better given the amount of money we spend on it and it is their job.

 

Many laws are poorly drafted laws passed in a hurry with nowhere near enough debate or considerations of the consequences or edge cases.

 

 

 

you will need to read the dissenting opinions to see the hows and whys.

 

 

I don't speak lawyer, but I've read this right through:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/brexit-ruling-supreme-court-judgment-full/

 

They're saying that the government has the power to withdraw us from these international treaties without parliament's approval. At least one is also saying that the proper process for seeking parliament's approval is when it comes time to repeal the 1972 act in 2 years.

 

Have you read them?

 

I'm not arguing that the executive should be made more powerful. Actually I would support a law giving parliament a bigger role in international treaties. Above all I want it to be clear. An 8:3 amongst the country's foremost experts on the law is not clear.

Edited January 24, 2017 by unbeliever

[apelike]

After reading and listening to the judgement I must agree that it was fair and correct and perhaps now the bickering can stop and we can get on with triggering A50. We are now in the position where A50 could be triggered by the end of March which is a good thing as the quicker the better.

 

I'm glad that they also back up what I have said in the past about the Sewell convention and that the law does not require ministers to consult with devolved administrations before triggering A50.

[gomgeg]

Lib Dems are planning to propose a second referendum.

Nothing to bother about, give timid Tim an ice cream and he'll come round.

They're easily bought, Clegg was adamant they would vote to get rid of tuition fees, then surprise surprise the offer of a job as Cameron's poodle and votes to raise them.

[Obelix]

After reading and listening to the judgement I must agree that it was fair and correct and perhaps now the bickering can stop and we can get on with triggering A50.

 

 

You clearly didn't read or understand the judgement.

 

You can now get on with Bill in Parliament. You cannot do anything about Article 50 until that Bill has been read, publish, read again, gone through committee and amendement stages, read for a third time, been sent to the Lords for all their similar stages, returned, amended as needed, and then passed for Royal Assent.

 

THEN, you can consider triggering Article 50..

 

The sheer lack of constitutional knowledge in the UK is frightening....

[apelike]

 

You clearly didn't read or understand the judgement.

 

You can now get on with Bill in Parliament. You cannot do anything about Article 50 until that Bill has been read, publish, read again, gone through committee and amendement stages, read for a third time, been sent to the Lords for all their similar stages, returned, amended as needed, and then passed for Royal Assent.

 

THEN, you can consider triggering Article 50..

 

The sheer lack of constitutional knowledge in the UK is frightening....

 

I certainly did read and understand it and to back up what I have stated I will give you this quote from the BBC, which is actually based on that constitutional knowledge that some seem to lack:

 

"However it pans out, BBC Parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy says the bill could pass through the Commons before the half-term recess in the middle of February, giving ample time for the Lords to then consider it and for it to become law before the end of March."

 

As MP's will vote in favour it will become law eventually so its prudent for it to be done as quickly as possible and I think both houses understand that.

Edited January 24, 2017 by apelike

[Obelix]

You missed the part about amendments then..... and that's where the interesting part will be....

[apelike]

You missed the part about amendments then..... and that's where the interesting part will be....

 

There is nothing to amend as its just a vote on triggering A50 and that is it.