Brexit legal challenge.

Brize

ThorpyFX said:

We the general public cannot be trusted to understand and analyse the facts.

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of the public support assisted dying, and yet MPs voted against it.

prh777

I do urge people to watch the following analysis irrespective of their position on the matter.

Brize

prh777 said:

I do urge people to watch the following analysis irrespective of their position on the matter.

What, you mean watch the guy that depends on the EU for his living?

ICBM

Brize said:

In the context of a binary referndum the largest minority is a majority BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T VOTE DON'T COUNT!

Of the vote, yes. Now show me where that means that the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU.

Brize

ICBM said:

Brize said:

In the context of a binary referndum the largest minority is a majority BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T VOTE DON'T COUNT!

Of the vote, yes. Now show me where that means that the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU.

Goodness me, where's the facepalm button when you need it?

StanleyAccrington

Let's get article 50 implemented before there is any wrangling over the legality of the referendum or of the outcome/result of said referendum.

Clarky

guitarfishbay said:

Garthy;1137089" said:

[quote="ICBM;1137085"]Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.
[/quote]

72 + 32 = 104?

is the extra 4% due to immigration?

prh777

Brize said:

prh777 said:

I do urge people to watch the following analysis irrespective of their position on the matter.

What, you mean watch the guy that depends on the EU for his living?

That is categorically incorrect.

littlegreenman

For those who haven't read the article linked to in the OP. This is what it's about.

"We must ensure that the Government follows the correct process to have legal certainty and protect the UK Constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament in these unprecedented circumstances. The result of the Referendum is not in doubt, but we need a process that follows UK law to enact it. The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful."

"We must make sure this is done properly for the benefit of all UK citizens. Article 50 simply cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in Parliament. Everyone in Britain needs the Government to apply the correct constitutional process and allow Parliament to fulfil its democratic duty which is to take into account the results of the Referendum along with other factors and make the ultimate decision."

The people of the UK have had their say in the advisory referendum. Now it is up to Parliament to debate and vote on the issue. Only then can Article 50 be "legally" invoked. The law firm in question is simply trying to ensure that this is carried out.

JezWynd

StanleyAccrington said:

Let's get article 50 implemented before there is any wrangling over the legality of the referendum or of the outcome/result of said referendum.

It would definitely simplify the current situation and probably sooth the markets at the same time.

If we're really lucky Juncker will get rotten drunk to celebrate and make a clumsy pass at Merkel.

ThorpyFX

Brize said:

ThorpyFX said:

We the general public cannot be trusted to understand and analyse the facts.

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of the public support assisted dying, and yet MPs voted against it.

I don't know why i have to clarify this... but here you go. We as a nation voted for a prestigious exploration ship to be called Boaty Mcboatface! I was not speaking for you or criticising your intellect, i wasn't even saying i couldn't understand the facts, I was applying a generalisation to the public at large which was pretty clear.

 It says it all when as a country have a potentially life changing vote and 28% don't even turn up. So no, i don't believe as a nation we can be trusted to vote on a subject so important.

littlegreenman

StanleyAccrington said:

Let's get article 50 implemented before there is any wrangling over the legality of the referendum or of the outcome/result of said referendum.

The referendum was nothing more than a popularity contest. It was never legally binding either way.

Parliament makes the decision after a debate and a vote.

Emp_Fab

How about this then.... if, for some bizarre reason, we had a referendum on whether we should nuke Russia, and the result came back YES, by 52% to 48% - should the government actually launch the missiles ?  Yes, it was idiotic to hold the referendum in the first place, but a vote is a vote...

Heartfeltdawn

Brize said:

What, you mean watch the guy that depends on the EU for his living?

I trust you take the same line with Nigel Farage then. 

StanleyAccrington

littlegreenman said:

StanleyAccrington said:

Let's get article 50 implemented before there is any wrangling over the legality of the referendum or of the outcome/result of said referendum.

The referendum was nothing more than a popularity contest. It was never legally binding either way.

Parliament makes the decision after a debate and a vote.

Doesn't sound like a very democratic system! What was the point of the referendum?

littlegreenman

StanleyAccrington said:

littlegreenman said:

StanleyAccrington said:

Let's get article 50 implemented before there is any wrangling over the legality of the referendum or of the outcome/result of said referendum.

The referendum was nothing more than a popularity contest. It was never legally binding either way.

Parliament makes the decision after a debate and a vote.

Doesn't sound like a very democratic system! What was the point of the referendum?

It's entirely democratic, we voiced our opinion in the "advisory referendum". It was not hidden that it was purely advisory, quite the opposite.

Now our democratically elected officials have the task of deciding whether the result is to be enacted, or if there are other factors at play that would make this the wrong route for us as a country at this time.

I fully expect that Parliament will cede to the will of the people, but it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

Richardj

littlegreenman said:

For those who haven't read the article linked to in the OP. This is what it's about.

"We must ensure that the Government follows the correct process to have legal certainty and protect the UK Constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament in these unprecedented circumstances. The result of the Referendum is not in doubt, but we need a process that follows UK law to enact it. The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful."

"We must make sure this is done properly for the benefit of all UK citizens. Article 50 simply cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in Parliament. Everyone in Britain needs the Government to apply the correct constitutional process and allow Parliament to fulfil its democratic duty which is to take into account the results of the Referendum along with other factors and make the ultimate decision."

The people of the UK have had their say in the advisory referendum. Now it is up to Parliament to debate and vote on the issue. Only then can Article 50 be "legally" invoked. The law firm in question is simply trying to ensure that this is carried out.

^^This, in double bold and underlined.

All of the petty bickering and rabble rousing is utterly pointless.  It was a gauge of opinion, not law. It isn't necessarily going to happen.  It just sets out a new series of debates regarding the future of the United Kingdom and it's relationship with the EU.

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE UNDERSTAND THAT????

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Please stop this .. there was a vote. If people couldn't be arsed to vote tough. More people voted to leave than stay. Have you any idea what these lawyers will unleash if they get their way - anarchy. It will fuel the rise of the far right. Is that what you want?

This is beyond pathetic.

StanleyAccrington

Sounds like a bit of a fudge to me. I thought that Dave Cam said something in the line of 'whatever the outcome, we will carry out the wishes of the people. Suppose we will have to wait and see what decision of parliament is in the best interest for us!!!!

UnclePsychosis

Brize;1137199" said:

Largest minority = majority.

http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/uncle_psychosis/Mobile Uploads/yeah_sure_jon_hamm_zpsrtz9uirj.gif