Brexit legal challenge.

Fretwired

Its not binding, but I guess there will be many MPs in marginal seats who will be worried they could be targeted by tactical voting should the referendum be ignored. This could hit Labour hard and lead to a surge in support for UKIP and far right organisations. Creful what you wish for ..

And Junker and co are now demanding a strong European government that can set tax rules and run foreign policy ...

Sporky

Chalky said:

Bit academic to say its not binding when the majority of voters seem to think it is.

Don't the majority of voters also think that the EU specifies the curvature of bananas?

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Another viewpoint on the legal challenge ...

Martin Howe, QC, the chairman of Lawyers for Britain, condemned the challenge as “devoid of all legal merit”.

“As a matter of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No act or other parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European Union Act 2011 parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European treaties, but notably has not extended any such restrictions to Article 50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore quite hopeless.

“It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics . . .”

Howe was a Conservative PPC in the past, helped draft the plans to scrap the Human Rights Act, and was mentioned on Conservative Home years back as precisely the sort of chap who should be elevated to the House of Lords by Master Cameron. It's therefore unlikely that he'd agree with the Mishcon approach. 

Fretwired

The commissioners have no problem with straight bananas, it's the crooked ones they don't like so much, but they have never banned them. As Commission Regulation (EC) 2257/94 puts it, bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature". In the case of "Extra class" bananas, there is no wiggle room, but Class 1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape", and Class 2 bananas can have full-on "defects of shape".

No attempt is made to define "abnormal curvature" in the case of bananas, which must lead to lots of arguments. Contrast the case of cucumbers (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.

;-)

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Another viewpoint on the legal challenge …

Martin Howe, QC, the chairman of Lawyers for Britain, condemned the challenge as “devoid of all legal merit”.

“As a matter of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No act or other parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European Union Act 2011 parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European treaties, but notably has not extended any such restrictions to Article 50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore quite hopeless.

“It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics . . .”

It's also deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that he should try to twist the views of those who want to see a truly democratic result to imply that they have a contempt for democracy.

I assume 'Lawyers For Britain' is a purely impartial organisation? )

Chalky said:

Bit academic to say its not binding when the majority of voters seem to think it is. Technically correct of course but since when has 'technically correct' mattered to the vox pop.

So you advocate mob rule over the law?

Sporky

Fretwired said:

The commissioners have no problem with straight bananas, it's the crooked ones they don't like so much, but they have never banned them.

Izzackerly.

Chalky

Sporky;1139020" said:

Chalky said:

Bit academic to say its not binding when the majority of voters seem to think it is.





Don't the majority of voters also think that the EU specifies the curvature of bananas?

Yes but they don't tend to vote for their next MP based on how they feel about banana curvature.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

Bit academic to say its not binding when the majority of voters seem to think it is. Technically correct of course but since when has 'technically correct' mattered to the vox pop.

I don't care what they think. They're wrong. 

Sporky

Chalky said:

Yes but they don't tend to vote for their next MP based on how they feel about banana curvature.

I really hope you're right!

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

Yes but they don't tend to vote for their next MP based on how they feel about banana curvature.

Maybe they should. Then we could become a proper banana republic

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Another viewpoint on the legal challenge …

Martin Howe, QC, the chairman of Lawyers for Britain, condemned the challenge as “devoid of all legal merit”.

“As a matter of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No act or other parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European Union Act 2011 parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European treaties, but notably has not extended any such restrictions to Article 50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore quite hopeless.

“It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics . . .”

It's also deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that he should try to twist the views of those who want to see a truly democratic result to imply that they have a contempt for democracy.

I assume 'Lawyers For Britain' is a purely impartial organisation? )

As impartial as the law firm making the challenge - I assume they're being well paid. I see no evidence their motives are altruistic.

Lawyers for Britain are at least open about the fact they want a different relationship with the EU and support Brexit. But I guess as they are Leavers their opinion is worthless ... perhaps you could give your legal opinion on Martin Howe QC's comments.

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn;1139031" said:

Chalky said:

Bit academic to say its not binding when the majority of voters seem to think it is. Technically correct of course but since when has 'technically correct' mattered to the vox pop.





I don't care what they think. They're wrong. 

I get that you don't care what they think, but what they think is what leads them to vote. You may not care now but will you care if their votes lead to putting in power a group of politicians whose policies you dislike, maybe intensely?

Snap

skankdelvar said:

The hunt for Mrs Merkel's carrot is on. 

Perhaps it's under Mrs Slocombe's pussy.

best thing I've read in this thread, top marks sir, that is hilarious!

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

Another viewpoint on the legal challenge ...

Martin Howe, QC, the chairman of Lawyers for Britain, condemned the challenge as “devoid of all legal merit”.

“As a matter of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No act or other parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European Union Act 2011 parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European treaties, but notably has not extended any such restrictions to Article 50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore quite hopeless.

“It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics . . .”

Howe was a Conservative PPC in the past, helped draft the plans to scrap the Human Rights Act, and was mentioned on Conservative Home years back as precisely the sort of chap who should be elevated to the House of Lords by Master Cameron. It's therefore unlikely that he'd agree with the Mishcon approach. 

He's a member of Lawyers for Britain ... they want out of the EU. The point is there are differing views depending on what side of the fence you're on. He's still a QC so I guess he makes valid legal claims albeit from a position he supports - the UK out of the EU.

But people just sneer and ridicule anyone with a different view (not directed at you).

ICBM

Fretwired said:

As impartial as the law firm making the challenge

Not at all - Lawyers For Britain is a campaign organisation. Mishcon de Reya is a law firm acting on behalf of their clients - totally different.

Fretwired said:

But I guess as they are Leavers their opinion is worthless ... perhaps you could give your legal opinion on Martin Howe QC's comments.

Not one straw man but two . 1 - I never said their opinion was worthless, just suggested that they are not impartial. 2 - as you know I'm not a lawyer. Ask fretmeister - he is.

It's also worth paying attention to what he said earlier - if you want to leave the EU, it's better to do that in a legally sound way with all the 't's crossed and 'i's dotted. That means putting it to Parliament.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Its not binding, but I guess there will be many MPs in marginal seats who will be worried they could be targeted by tactical voting should the referendum be ignored. This could hit Labour hard and lead to a surge in support for UKIP and far right organisations. Creful what you wish for ..

Nah, bring it on. People were shitting themselves at the BNP appearing on Question Time. Exposure of that nature broke them apart. UKIP won't break up but greater power will change them. It will hit Labour hard but I think the impact on the Conservatives would be considerable as well. 

Chalky said:

I get that you don't care what they think, but what they think is what leads them to vote. You may not care now but will you care if their votes lead to putting in power a group of politicians whose policies you dislike, maybe intensely?

The way people vote is different from the power of the referendum itself. I don't care how they voted. It could be a 99% Leave vote for all I care (it'd be the only time I'd be a member of the 1%!)

The bottom line is that the referendum was a consultative exercise only. There is no way of changing that. No amount of Leavers proclaiming on Facebook how "the people have spoken" changes that. That this wasn't made crystal clear to the electorate by either side demonstrates the level of subterfuge at work. 

fretmeister

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Another viewpoint on the legal challenge …

Martin Howe, QC, the chairman of Lawyers for Britain, condemned the challenge as “devoid of all legal merit”.

“As a matter of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No act or other parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European Union Act 2011 parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European treaties, but notably has not extended any such restrictions to Article 50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore quite hopeless.

“It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics . . .”

It's also deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that he should try to twist the views of those who want to see a truly democratic result to imply that they have a contempt for democracy.

I assume 'Lawyers For Britain' is a purely impartial organisation? )

As impartial as the law firm making the challenge - I assume they're being well paid. I see no evidence their motives are altruistic.

Lawyers for Britain are at least open about the fact they want a different relationship with the EU and support Brexit. But I guess as they are Leavers their opinion is worthless ... perhaps you could give your legal opinion on Martin Howe QC's comments.

You two are beginning to look like the proverbial bald men arguing over a comb. But worse than that - it's like neither of you had any hair, ever.

It is highly likely that MdR are impartial in that they are doing the work required by their own client and their own views don't come into it - in other words it is their CLIENT that is not impartial. Whereas Martin Howe is effectively his own client as he is supporting his own group.

The difference is rather obvious and important.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

He's a member of Lawyers for Britain ... they want out of the EU. The point is there are differing views depending on what side of the fence you're on. He's still a QC so I guess he makes valid legal claims albeit from a position he supports - the UK out of the EU.

But people just sneer and ridicule anyone with a different view (not directed at you).

One day I will quote that back at you when you have a pop at SJW feminists

I simply presented his own level of bias. On the issue of Crown prerogative, it would appear that he is right as I posted yesterday. 

In that case, we have a consultative referendum being presented as a binding referendum that leads to a new Prime Minister invoking Article 50 without any recourse to Parliament. When Howe talks about contempt for democracy, then I would suggest he look further than just Mishcon.

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

You two are beginning to look like the proverbial bald men arguing over a comb. But worse than that - it's like neither of you had any hair, ever.

It is highly likely that MdR are impartial in that they are doing the work required by their own client and their own views don't come into it - in other words it is their CLIENT that is not impartial. Whereas Martin Howe is effectively his own client as he is supporting his own group.

The difference is rather obvious and important.

Bloody lawyers .. although you said 'highly likely' .. ;-)

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Bloody lawyers .. although you said 'highly likely' .. ;-)

Wait until Monday when you receive his invoice. Time is money!