Brexit legal challenge.

Bogwhoppit

Its all a moot point. I don't believe article 50 will be triggered leading to the exit of the EU.

We may as well talk about musical instruments and debate if you have the toilet paper with the loose part at the front or back.

ICBM

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.

Maybe we should just get the government to do whatever else it likes without regard to whether it's legal or not too?


That's a dictatorship.

chillidoggy

This is becoming tiresome.

Fretwired

ICBM 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.

Maybe we should just get the government to do whatever else it likes without regard to whether it's legal or not too?


That's a dictatorship.

That's how it works .. we elect a government and they make decisions on our behalf. You could always move to Switzerland.

:-)

Bogwhoppit

chillidoggy said:

This is becoming tiresome.

It reminds me of the child stamping his feet in the playground because he didn't get his own way.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

Evidence please.

I would refer to these two articles:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/30/brexit-on-why-as-a-matter-of-law-triggering-article-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/

The greatest thing to come from both is that both agree that extricating ourselves from Europe will be a long long process. 

@Heartfeltdawn .. thanks. I'll have a read later.

Gassage

Sickeningly chic lawfirm in narcissistic self publicity shocker.

Brize

ICBM 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.

Maybe we should just get the government to do whatever else it likes without regard to whether it's legal or not too?


That's a dictatorship.

The irony is almost too much to bear.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

Chalky said:

Yet again you are just suggesting vote-rigging in favour of Remain....

No, I am suggesting requiring an actual democratic mandate for Leave.

And if the roles were reversed? Had the leave remain vote won .. you'd be singing a different tune were the Brexit crowd moaning.

That's a bit boneheaded, man (presuming this is what you actually meant)...if the Remain vote had won, then there wouldn't need to be a democratic mandate to take action because nothing would would need to be done.

The fact is that it's been suggested that the government will do away with the constitutional process and trigger Article 50 illegally; that would leave it up to challenge and would likely put them in the position of having to subsequently reverse it.

This is just trying to force them to follow our democratic process. Chucking the rules away would not be a particularly smart idea.

Unless...that's the point. Trigger it illegally, get on with negotiations, then nudge someone to challenge its legality if things aren't going well; that's the only way the exit can be retracted within the 2 year timescale.

On the other hand...I no longer care. I still think leaving the EU is a stupid, stupid thing, but I've just discovered I can get most of the benefits of being an EU citizen post-Article 50 anyway, so I'm all right, Jack

ICBM

Fretwired said:

That's how it works .. we elect a government and they make decisions on our behalf.

Wrong - we elect a *parliament*. Important difference.

Bogwhoppit said:

It reminds me of the child stamping his feet in the playground because he didn't get his own way.

What it looks like to me is that the Leave side want their own way even though *they know* it's not supported by the majority of the country and the referendum was not legally binding.

I said the same before the vote - we're going to end up having a massive change imposed on the country by a vociferous minority who shout down the quieter majority. That is not democracy.

Brize

ICBM said:

we're going to end up having a massive change imposed on the country by a vociferous minority who shout down the quieter majority.

If we end up staying in the EU, that's exactly what will have happened.

paulmapp8306

ICBM;1137085" said:

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

Doesn't make it less valid. As the adverts say "the majority of people, who expressed a preference". If you don't express a preference them your not bothered either way, so can legitimately be ignored with respect the choice.

It's pretty simple really.

paulmapp8306

ICBM;1137128" said:

Chalky said:Yet again you are just suggesting vote-rigging in favour of Remain....





No, I am suggesting requiring an actual democratic mandate for Leave.

No, your suggesting a method to get you're own way.

You need a new drum to bang.

digitalscream

paulmapp8306 said:

ICBM;1137128" said:

Chalky said:Yet again you are just suggesting vote-rigging in favour of Remain....





No, I am suggesting requiring an actual democratic mandate for Leave.

No, your suggesting a method if getting you'd own way.

You need a new drum to bang.

So...you'd advocate breaking the law to get your way a little quicker, on the acceptance that that's the only way in which Article 50 could be retracted later on?

Seems a bit self-defeating to me.

ToneControl

ICBM said:

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

AFAIK it was the single biggest ever mandate for a decision in UK history at 17.4m votes, but that's not enough?

digitalscream

It's also worth bearing in mind that if the PM at the time does invoke Article 50 without going through parliament and it's determined to be legal (by whatever means), that sets an absolutely terrifying precedent.

Think about it. A Britain without any external legal influence, where the Prime Minister can wipe Acts of Parliament off the books whenever he/she chooses (since that's what triggering Article 50 amounts to). Essentially, that's a dictatorship.

Now think about that Prime Minister being Theresa May, aka Mrs Surveillance State.

Still think it's a good idea to skip the MP vote?

paulmapp8306

digitalscream said:

paulmapp8306 said:

ICBM;1137128" said:

Chalky said:Yet again you are just suggesting vote-rigging in favour of Remain....





No, I am suggesting requiring an actual democratic mandate for Leave.

No, your suggesting a method if getting you'd own way.

You need a new drum to bang.

So...you'd advocate breaking the law to get your way a little quicker, on the acceptance that that's the only way in which Article 50 could be retracted later on?

Seems a bit self-defeating to me.

Nobody said breaking the law, as such.   Its about the validity of the referendum itself.

You could just have easily said "we intend to leave the EU - unless a majority of the population turn out and disagree with us - thats what we'll do.  It would have been just as valid and just as wrong.  You will ALWAYS get some people who wont vote - so by stating what ICBM seems to think is correct will ALWAYS weight the result - its just about which way you want to weigh it - which equates to rigging by those arranging the vote.

mellowsun

Need a vote by parliament otherwise effectively we have mob rule. Worth learning the lessons from Germany in the 20s and early 30s, where referenda were used regularly.

digitalscream

paulmapp8306 said:

digitalscream said:

So...you'd advocate breaking the law to get your way a little quicker, on the acceptance that that's the only way in which Article 50 could be retracted later on?

Seems a bit self-defeating to me.

Nobody said breaking the law, as such.   Its about the validity of the referendum itself.

Pushing Article 50 through without an Act of Parliament would be exactly that - breaking the law.

It was an opinion poll, nothing more. To treat it as equivalent to an Act of Parliament is utterly ludicrous, and the beginning of a very slippery slope. Besides, you can't say "Ah, but the rules said a 50% majority is all that was needed for a decision!" while simultaneously saying, "I don't care if the rules say it wasn't binding!". Both stipulations were understood long in advance.

It may well be that Parliament agrees and goes with it - in which case, fine. It does need to happen though.

Brize

digitalscream said:

It was an opinion poll, nothing more.

And the over-simplification award goes to...