Brexit legal challenge.

Heartfeltdawn

paulmapp8306 said:

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

And what validity do you believe the referendum had? It was an enormously ambiguous question that was set, 

Brize said: And the over-simplification award goes to...

...nobody here. The oversimplification is the referendum itself.

Remain won out and this apparently is good enough to bring about the downfall of a democratically elected Prime Minister, gives a mandate to an unelected PM to use their prerogative to carry out a process for which there is no timetable, no precedent, and absolutely no certainty over how long it will take, and they can do this with a Parliamentary input.

There's your oversimplification. 

Heartfeltdawn

digitalscream said:

That's the problem - we could conceivably end up in a situation where the PM has triggered Article 50, but Parliament refuses to repeal the European Communities Act. In that eventuality, it's kind of a stalemate until 2 years have elapsed, at which point it's taken out of our hands and the EU kick us out.

Basically, it's exactly what the Leave campaign used as persuader - the EU will directly have invalidated one of our laws, through our own actions.

Irony in action

The only way to avoid any chance of this happening is to have Parliament involved in triggering Article 50 at the same time as repealing the European Communities Act, I suspect.

Precisely. It leaves the Leave campaign carrying all the cards. It can blame any opponents who don't repeal the ECA, and it uses the EU to broadside an act of Parliament. It really has been an incredible bit of political manipulation to get to this point. Sod Game of Thrones and House of Cards, we have empire building at political level going on right here. 

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn;1137617" said:

paulmapp8306 said:



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










And what validity do you believe the referendum had? It was an enormously ambiguous question that was set, Brize said: And the over-simplification award goes to...



...nobody here. The oversimplification is the referendum itself.

Remain won out and this apparently is good enough to bring about the downfall of a democratically elected Prime Minister, gives a mandate to an unelected PM to use their prerogative to carry out a process for which there is no timetable, no precedent, and absolutely no certainty over how long it will take, and they can do this with a Parliamentary input.

There's your oversimplification. 

Downfall of a democratically elected PM? MPs are elected and he resigned of his own accord!

Your over-simplification is morphing into bending the truth to drama queen levels.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:Downfall of a democratically elected PM? MPs are elected and he resigned of his own accord! 

Your over-simplification is morphing into bending the truth to drama queen levels.

When Leave supporters had made it clear that they felt he should resign even with a 20% winning Remain margin, then a defeat like this was going to mean bugger all support for DC yet the Leavers still had the temerity to write that letter pre-ref asking him to stay. Resigned of his own accord = in the same way several football managers do so rather than a public sacking. 

Drama queen. Rolling in the aisles, old boy. 

mellowsun

Leadsom makes it clear that she still doesn't understand the difference between the single market and tariff-free trade:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/04/brexit-live-plan-leave-vote-hysteria-boris-johnson?page=with:block-577a3affe4b0b320cf128dc5#block-577a3affe4b0b320cf128dc5

MrBump

ThorpyFX said:

A bit of history might be useful here. In 1930's Germany referendums were used to propel a fascist government to power... when people asked how it was possible for such a thing to happen, the answer is that the general public were duped into voting in a charismatic leader who sought to represent what they thought were their best wishes. Once in his tune changed somewhat and he consolidated his position and shored up his power....

Since World War II Germany hasn't held national level referenda, and rightly so... we should never have held a referendum, why we think we are any different to Germany is beyond me, governments are voted in to make difficult decisions. We the general public cannot be trusted to understand and analyse the facts. making a protest vote against the EU because you don't like the UK government is childish beyond belief and massively reckless.

the decision to leave/stay should now be made by the government, if they judge that it is not in our best interests to leave then great, if its the other way then so be it.

<script type="text/javascript" src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/37d4d046/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js"></script>

Big fat wis.

DaevidJ

I would not put it past whoever gets the leadership to pass on the duty to Parliament... It will be true to the current climate in passing the buck and the ultimate in blame sharing if it were to all go tits up...

chillidoggy

Surely this legal challenge will clarify the rights' and wrongs, leaving the path clear for the government to act accordingly. The only thing is, it'll probably take an ice age while the lawyers milk it for all it's worth.

Fretwired

ThorpyFX said:

A bit of history might be useful here. In 1930's Germany referendums were used to propel a fascist government to power... when people asked how it was possible for such a thing to happen, the answer is that the general public were duped into voting in a charismatic leader who sought to represent what they thought were their best wishes. Once in his tune changed somewhat and he consolidated his position and shored up his power....

Since World War II Germany hasn't held national level referenda, and rightly so... we should never have held a referendum, why we think we are any different to Germany is beyond me, governments are voted in to make difficult decisions. We the general public cannot be trusted to understand and analyse the facts. making a protest vote against the EU because you don't like the UK government is childish beyond belief and massively reckless.

the decision to leave/stay should now be made by the government, if they judge that it is not in our best interests to leave then great, if its the other way then so be it.

<script type="text/javascript" src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/37d4d046/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js"></script>

Godwins Law.

Oh come on. We've had a couple of democratic referendums - should Scotland remain part of the UK and should we remain in the EU neither of which will herald in a British Nazi Party. More FUD ....

The Germans didn't hold many referendums .. the key one allowed the positions of President and Chancellor to be combined, allowing Hitler to assume the absolute power. I must have missed the one where Cameron wanted to combine the role of PM and Monarch ... :-)

ThorpyFX

ToneControl said:

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?

We should have adopted a similar model to Australian referenda. I.e. all regions (england, wales, scotland and Northern Ireland)  have to agree to the split for it to be enacted. this would have saved the union from a split after the vote....

Chalky

chillidoggy;1137714" said:

Surely this legal challenge will clarify the rights' and wrongs, leaving the path clear for the government to act accordingly. The only thing is, it'll probably take an ice age while the lawyers milk it for all it's worth.

Any guess at the costs incurred by the legal challenge? Ker-ching! Not that it is the motivation, oh no sir, and its not like MdR went touting for business is it? I mean its pure coincidence that all those big companies showed up at their offices at the same time! Shurely?! )

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

Godwins Law.

Oh come on. We've had a couple of democratic referendums - should Scotland remain part of the UK and should we remain in the EU neither of which will herald in a British Nazi Party. More FUD ....

The Germans didn't hold many referendums .. the key one allowed the positions of President and Chancellor to be combined, allowing Hitler to assume the absolute power. I must have missed the one where Cameron wanted to combine the role of PM and Monarch ... :-)

I think the main point is that populations - as a whole, rather than people individually - cannot be trusted to make single decisions on complex issues particularly well, because only a relatively small proportion of them will try to consider the whole scope of the issue at hand (compared with the number that you'd hope would consider the whole scope).

That's borne out by both of the recent referendums - a statistically significant number of people voting based on single issues and ignoring the complexity, and likely a similarly large number putting in a protest vote.

Those things work - mostly - when voting in a parliament, but that's the whole point: it's why we have a representative democracy in the first place, because Parliament acts as check and balance to the capacity of the will of the people to make stupid decisions for the wrong reasons (I'm talking in general here, not about this particular referendum). The General Elections then reverse it, so that the people become check and balance for Parliament.

This is why Gove's comment about the British people being "tired of listening to experts" made me chuckle, because politicians are supposed to be the experts in affairs of state. The fact that he's now running to be at the top of that pile of experts is practically side-splitting.

digitalscream

Chalky said:

chillidoggy;1137714" said:

Surely this legal challenge will clarify the rights' and wrongs, leaving the path clear for the government to act accordingly. The only thing is, it'll probably take an ice age while the lawyers milk it for all it's worth.

Any guess at the costs incurred by the legal challenge? Ker-ching! Not that it is the motivation, oh no sir, and its not like MdR went touting for business is it? I mean its pure coincidence that all those big companies showed up at their offices at the same time! Shurely?! )

I'm curious - you seem to be objecting to the idea of this legal challenge, and yet you still haven't told us why the PM doing something unconstitutional and potentially illegal (thus opening up the whole triggering of Article 50 to revocation) is actually a good thing...?

MrBump

I'm pretty sure that this will go to parliament for a vote - I just can't see how it can go any other way.

And I wonder which way these clowns will fall?  

If you look at the heatmap for who voted in and out, then the commons should give a massive backing for leave - just because of the way constituencies are drawn up and our massively dodgy and unrepresentative electoral system.  MPs are selected by their constituents to represent them.

But... I guess it depends on whether the MPs think that best representation doesn't mean doing what their constituents tell them to do... rather what they feel is right for the good of the country as a whole...

Interesting times.

Fretwired

ThorpyFX said:

ToneControl said:

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?

We should have adopted a similar model to Australian referenda. I.e. all regions (england, wales, scotland and Northern Ireland)  have to agree to the split for it to be enacted. this would have saved the union from a split after the vote....

So 5 million Scots could stop 55 million people in England from doing what they want? You call that democracy. The next thing you'd get is a demand for independence for England. Bonkers ...

ThorpyFX

Fretwired said:

ThorpyFX said:

A bit of history might be useful here. In 1930's Germany referendums were used to propel a fascist government to power... when people asked how it was possible for such a thing to happen, the answer is that the general public were duped into voting in a charismatic leader who sought to represent what they thought were their best wishes. Once in his tune changed somewhat and he consolidated his position and shored up his power....

Since World War II Germany hasn't held national level referenda, and rightly so... we should never have held a referendum, why we think we are any different to Germany is beyond me, governments are voted in to make difficult decisions. We the general public cannot be trusted to understand and analyse the facts. making a protest vote against the EU because you don't like the UK government is childish beyond belief and massively reckless.

the decision to leave/stay should now be made by the government, if they judge that it is not in our best interests to leave then great, if its the other way then so be it.

<script type="text/javascript" src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/37d4d046/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js"></script>

Godwins Law.

Oh come on. We've had a couple of democratic referendums - should Scotland remain part of the UK and should we remain in the EU neither of which will herald in a British Nazi Party. More FUD ....

The Germans didn't hold many referendums .. the key one allowed the positions of President and Chancellor to be combined, allowing Hitler to assume the absolute power. I must have missed the one where Cameron wanted to combine the role of PM and Monarch ... :-</div>

I didn't say we would end up with a NAZI party. That situation was a perfect storm of circumstance, environment and a lunatic at the helm. I stick by my point though, referendums are a poor way to maintain democracy. They divide nations, they cause bitterness, resentment and they take a lot of time and money. The Scottish referendum had all of these facets and should never have happened. The EU referendum has all of these facets and should never have happened.

What is best for Mrs Miggins in Clacton, isn't necessarily best for the country, she isn't an expert and therefore her opinion although validly held should not be given more power than that.

We vote in parties who set out their stall in a manifesto, this is how our democracy is. If every key decision was put to the general public we would be ruined as a country. Guaranteed and not FUD. 

fretmeister

Chalky said:

chillidoggy;1137714" said:

Surely this legal challenge will clarify the rights' and wrongs, leaving the path clear for the government to act accordingly. The only thing is, it'll probably take an ice age while the lawyers milk it for all it's worth.

Any guess at the costs incurred by the legal challenge? Ker-ching! Not that it is the motivation, oh no sir, and its not like MdR went touting for business is it? I mean its pure coincidence that all those big companies showed up at their offices at the same time! Shurely?! )

No - MdR would not have gone touting for it. Mainly because that is against the rules.

However if 1 party instructed them to consider a challenge and also instructed them to investigate whether others wished to join in TO SAVE MONEY by not all doing it individually with different law firms then they would have done.

And in the long run - staying in the EU would actually mean less money for the big commercial law firms. They would be the ones gaining the most from Brexit as they would be doing all the work on the new contractual arrangements and challenges for decades.

Thank god you didn't try to over-simplify their involvement!

Sporky

Fretwired said:

So 5 million Scots could stop 55 million people in England from doing what they want? You call that democracy. The next thing you'd get is a demand for independence for England. Bonkers ...

Without wanting to sound too stuck-record, it's more that 5 million people in Scotland could stop 17 million people in England from doing what they want.

I'm not making a comment on whether that's OK or not, just putting the figures right. A lot of the UK doesn't want to leave, regardless of any arguments about exactly how many. It's probably fair to say that it's at least 16 million or so.

Heartfeltdawn

ThorpyFX said: What is best for Mrs Miggins in Clacton, isn't necessarily best for the country, she isn't an expert and therefore her opinion although validly held should not be given more power than that.

But we don't trust experts now. Didn't you get the memo?  )

Heartfeltdawn

fretmeister said:

No - MdR would not have gone touting for it. Mainly because that is against the rules.

However if 1 party instructed them to consider a challenge and also instructed them to investigate whether others wished to join in TO SAVE MONEY by not all doing it individually with different law firms then they would have done.

And in the long run - staying in the EU would actually mean less money for the big commercial law firms. They would be the ones gaining the most from Brexit as they would be doing all the work on the new contractual arrangements and challenges for decades.

Thank god you didn't try to over-simplify their involvement!

  :-c