Brexit legal challenge.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

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.

So politicians are experts are they? So please explain to me how this highly educated and clever group of people collectively ran the worse campaign in the history of campaigns. Fear, lies, bogus facts. None of them seem to be experts on anything - I'm waiting for Armageddon and the Osborne budget from Hell. People saying saying it should be left to MPs generally assume that they would have voted to remain.

Perhaps if more MPs got out into the country and talked to ordinary people they might have seen how, for example, people's lives have been affected by immigration. I don't think people are silly. I think its condensing to look down your nose at ordinary people. What next? An IQ test to be able to vote.

ICBM

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 …

Even I never thought that was a good idea .

The population sizes are too different - England has several times more than all the other nations put together.

However I did suggest that if England and Wales want to leave the EU, they could do it tomorrow by declaring independence from the UKoSNIaG (United Kingdom of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar) . But no-one else seemed to like that suggestion...

chillidoggy

digitalscream said:

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...?

I didn't say anything about objecting to the challenge, and neither did Chalky. Have another read, eh?

Fretwired

ICBM said:

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 …

Even I never thought that was a good idea .

The population sizes are too different - England has several times more than all the other nations put together.

However I did suggest that if England and Wales want to leave the EU, they could do it tomorrow by declaring independence from the UKoSNIaG (United Kingdom of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar) . But no-one else seemed to like that suggestion...

Good idea .. lets hold a referendum .. :-)

Fretwired

Sporky said:

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.

I was going on the actual result. Scotland and N. Ireland voted for Remain and England and Wales for Brexit. On that basis Scotland could block the UK from leaving as more than 50% of Scots voted Remain. All we had to do was hold a referendum in Scotland. It would have been quicker and cheaper. Sod the English and the Welsh ...

digitalscream

chillidoggy said:

I didn't say anything about objecting to the challenge, and neither did Chalky. Have another read, eh?

I didn't say you did at all - I left your quote in there for context. Chalky's tone suggests that he's objecting - to me, anyway. Subjectively

Fretwired said:

So politicians are experts are they? So please explain to me how this highly educated and clever group of people collectively ran the worse campaign in the history of campaigns. Fear, lies, bogus facts. None of them seem to be experts on anything - I'm waiting for Armageddon and the Osborne budget from Hell. People saying saying it should be left to MPs generally assume that they would have voted to remain.

Perhaps if more MPs got out into the country and talked to ordinary people they might have seen how, for example, people's lives have been affected by immigration. I don't think people are silly. I think its condensing to look down your nose at ordinary people. What next? An IQ test to be able to vote.

In affairs of state, yes they are the experts. Do they make mistakes? Sure, but a lot less than if the average person was in charge.

And I'm not being condescending - I count myself (and everybody here) as people who don't understand the ramifications either. I've said right from the beginning (ie waaaaay before the referendum) that it should never have happened, and that this is why we elect government in the first place; to make choices that the general population can't/won't/don't understand.

That's not to say that the general population aren't capable of understanding - there's a clear difference there.

ThorpyFX

Fretwired said:

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 ...

Not bonkers at all. It affects the Scots as much as it affects the English and the Welsh and the Northern Irish. For such a  monumental decision all regions should agree... otherwise you end up with an an unnecessary division and calls for a splitting of the Union as has been borne out. That being said, i don't agree with referendums anyway.

chillidoggy

digitalscream said:

chillidoggy said:

I didn't say anything about objecting to the challenge, and neither did Chalky. Have another read, eh?

I didn't say you did at all - I left your quote in there for context. Chalky's tone suggests that he's objecting - to me, anyway. Subjectively

Fretwired said:

So politicians are experts are they? So please explain to me how this highly educated and clever group of people collectively ran the worse campaign in the history of campaigns. Fear, lies, bogus facts. None of them seem to be experts on anything - I'm waiting for Armageddon and the Osborne budget from Hell. People saying saying it should be left to MPs generally assume that they would have voted to remain.

Perhaps if more MPs got out into the country and talked to ordinary people they might have seen how, for example, people's lives have been affected by immigration. I don't think people are silly. I think its condensing to look down your nose at ordinary people. What next? An IQ test to be able to vote.

In affairs of state, yes they are the experts. Do they make mistakes? Sure, but a lot less than if the average person was in charge.

And I'm not being condescending - I count myself (and everybody here) as people who don't understand the ramifications either. I've said right from the beginning (ie waaaaay before the referendum) that it should never have happened, and that this is why we elect government in the first place; to make choices that the general population can't/won't/don't understand.

That's not to say that the general population aren't capable of understanding - there's a clear difference there.

Chalky has already proved he's more than capable of fighting his own corner, but the point I was making was that the legal challenge is a good thing in as much as someone else's money is paying for it, not mine as a taxpayer, and a legal ruling would surely be taken notice of by the government as the way forward, whichever path that may be. But time is of the essence, and the lawyers will want to drag it out.

chillidoggy

chillidoggy said:

digitalscream said:

chillidoggy said:

I didn't say anything about objecting to the challenge, and neither did Chalky. Have another read, eh?

I didn't say you did at all - I left your quote in there for context. Chalky's tone suggests that he's objecting - to me, anyway. Subjectively

Fretwired said:

So politicians are experts are they? So please explain to me how this highly educated and clever group of people collectively ran the worse campaign in the history of campaigns. Fear, lies, bogus facts. None of them seem to be experts on anything - I'm waiting for Armageddon and the Osborne budget from Hell. People saying saying it should be left to MPs generally assume that they would have voted to remain.

Perhaps if more MPs got out into the country and talked to ordinary people they might have seen how, for example, people's lives have been affected by immigration. I don't think people are silly. I think its condensing to look down your nose at ordinary people. What next? An IQ test to be able to vote.

In affairs of state, yes they are the experts. Do they make mistakes? Sure, but a lot less than if the average person was in charge.

And I'm not being condescending - I count myself (and everybody here) as people who don't understand the ramifications either. I've said right from the beginning (ie waaaaay before the referendum) that it should never have happened, and that this is why we elect government in the first place; to make choices that the general population can't/won't/don't understand.

That's not to say that the general population aren't capable of understanding - there's a clear difference there.

Chalky has already proved he's more than capable of fighting his own corner, but the point I was making was that the legal challenge is a good thing in as much as someone else's money is paying for it, not mine as a taxpayer. Actually, it's more of a legal ruling than a challenge, and would surely be taken notice of by the government as the way forward, whichever path that may be. But time is of the essence, and the lawyers will want to drag it out.

fretmeister

chillidoggy said:

digitalscream said:

chillidoggy said:

I didn't say anything about objecting to the challenge, and neither did Chalky. Have another read, eh?

I didn't say you did at all - I left your quote in there for context. Chalky's tone suggests that he's objecting - to me, anyway. Subjectively

Fretwired said:

So politicians are experts are they? So please explain to me how this highly educated and clever group of people collectively ran the worse campaign in the history of campaigns. Fear, lies, bogus facts. None of them seem to be experts on anything - I'm waiting for Armageddon and the Osborne budget from Hell. People saying saying it should be left to MPs generally assume that they would have voted to remain.

Perhaps if more MPs got out into the country and talked to ordinary people they might have seen how, for example, people's lives have been affected by immigration. I don't think people are silly. I think its condensing to look down your nose at ordinary people. What next? An IQ test to be able to vote.

In affairs of state, yes they are the experts. Do they make mistakes? Sure, but a lot less than if the average person was in charge.

And I'm not being condescending - I count myself (and everybody here) as people who don't understand the ramifications either. I've said right from the beginning (ie waaaaay before the referendum) that it should never have happened, and that this is why we elect government in the first place; to make choices that the general population can't/won't/don't understand.

That's not to say that the general population aren't capable of understanding - there's a clear difference there.

Chalky has already proved he's more than capable of fighting his own corner, but the point I was making was that the legal challenge is a good thing in as much as someone else's money is paying for it, not mine as a taxpayer, and a legal ruling would surely be taken notice of by the government as the way forward, whichever path that may be. But time is of the essence, and the lawyers will want to drag it out.

No they won't want to drag it out.

Because unless they win quickly their clients won't be able to stop the govt.

If the govt believe they an activate Art50 without a vote then it needs a positive step to prevent it.

paulmapp8306

digitalscream said:

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.

Possibly - but again, I was disputing ICBMs continuing stance, that the referendum was not representative - because a majority of people didn't vote to leave, only a majority of those who voted did.

What happens regards A50 is a different subject - though related.

There are so many MPs stating that the referendum must be honored, that I doubt - at present at least - a vote in parliament will reflect the referendum result.

fretmeister

Is the referendum still representative now that the winners have completely retracted the impact on immigration and NHS funding?

If, for example, 2 million people confirmed they voted "leave" mainly due to one of those issues then has the result been tainted?

Chalky

fretmeister;1137859" said:

chillidoggy said:



digitalscream said:



chillidoggy said:I didn't say anything about objecting to the challenge, and neither did Chalky. Have another read, eh?










I didn't say you did at all - I left your quote in there for context. Chalky's tone suggests that he's objecting - to me, anyway. Subjectively




Fretwired said:



So politicians are experts are they? So please explain to me how this highly educated and clever group of people collectively ran the worse campaign in the history of campaigns. Fear, lies, bogus facts. None of them seem to be experts on anything - I'm waiting for Armageddon and the Osborne budget from Hell. People saying saying it should be left to MPs generally assume that they would have voted to remain.



Perhaps if more MPs got out into the country and talked to ordinary people they might have seen how, for example, people's lives have been affected by immigration. I don't think people are silly. I think its condensing to look down your nose at ordinary people. What next? An IQ test to be able to vote.














In affairs of state, yes they are the experts. Do they make mistakes? Sure, but a lot less than if the average person was in charge.

And I'm not being condescending - I count myself (and everybody here) as people who don't understand the ramifications either. I've said right from the beginning (ie waaaaay before the referendum) that it should never have happened, and that this is why we elect government in the first place; to make choices that the general population can't/won't/don't understand.

That's not to say that the general population aren't capable of understanding - there's a clear difference there.







Chalky has already proved he's more than capable of fighting his own corner, but the point I was making was that the legal challenge is a good thing in as much as someone else's money is paying for it, not mine as a taxpayer, and a legal ruling would surely be taken notice of by the government as the way forward, whichever path that may be. But time is of the essence, and the lawyers will want to drag it out.










No they won't want to drag it out.

Because unless they win quickly their clients won't be able to stop the govt.

If the govt believe they an activate Art50 without a vote then it needs a positive step to prevent it.

Alas my experience of lawyers is they take a lot of money, move slower than expected, and are good at making money. And I'd be gobsmacked if folks in MdR are not rubbing their hands in glee at the forthcoming huge fees and widespread free publicity for their firm. Ker-ching! )

Chalky

PS The legal challenge can't be dismissed and has to be addressed. The inclusion of parliament is important for the anti-dictator reasons given earlier. If parliament overrides the referendum results then we will be living it Interesting Times. Politics is about choices and consequences after all.

paulmapp8306

Heartfeltdawn 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, 

It was probably the least ambiguous question it was possible to ask.  Do you want to leave the EU or not.  

I admit the ANSWER to that question is not easy to get to - and why so many struggled to make a choice.  There was never a way to say what "out" would look like, as it needs negotiation to get there - and that wasn't possible before A50 is triggered (which ever way).

Im also fed up of the "but they lied to you" stance.  That rather depends on how you made your choice.  did you believe the 350 mill figure?  did you assume 2fund the NHS instead" meant with the whole figure?  What do you understand by "immigration"  v "controlled immigration" or £boarder control".  The answer to any of these could be found by not listening to MPs - who will give you one side of an argument and generally exaggerate that, and of some of your own research.

For some of us - quite a lot that I know (though that might be my circle and not indicative) it had nothing to do with the arguments put forward by the remain or leave camps - it was based on how the EU dealt with Cameron asking for reform.  That process showed that the EU wasn't going to reform any time soon - so staying in and reforming from "inside" was not an option.  It was stay in as it is - and with possible/probably further eroding of national powers - or get out and go it alone, in a way that can best be negotiated for the country.

fretmeister

If a firm is instructed that X must be done before a particular date then it will be done or they'll get sued themselves.

MdR don't need any more publicity. Anyone who can afford them is already more than aware of them.

I would imagine that when a big manufacturing company gets a big order many of their folks would also be rubbing their hands in glee. Commercial companies exist to make money. And just the same - if the order involves an un-movable deadline then it will be met. Or no money at all.

Fretwired

I'm not worried by the lawyers - I want to know who their clients are though.

paulmapp8306

ThorpyFX said:

Fretwired said:

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 ...

Not bonkers at all. It affects the Scots as much as it affects the English and the Welsh and the Northern Irish. For such a  monumental decision all regions should agree... otherwise you end up with an an unnecessary division and calls for a splitting of the Union as has been borne out. That being said, i don't agree with referendums anyway.

Tosh.  If you make it about regions, you making it about division.  Its about the whole of the UK - not which little bit of it wanted what.

fretmeister

Fretwired said:

I'm not worried by the lawyers - I want to know who their clients are though.

That they haven't said surprises me too. Especially as they have said they have already begun the process.

The "process" could be as early as the initial 'Letter before Action' or it could mean that proceedings have been issued but not served. At the point of service they won't be able to keep it quiet any more.

fretmeister

paulmapp8306 said:

ThorpyFX said:

Fretwired said:

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 ...

Not bonkers at all. It affects the Scots as much as it affects the English and the Welsh and the Northern Irish. For such a  monumental decision all regions should agree... otherwise you end up with an an unnecessary division and calls for a splitting of the Union as has been borne out. That being said, i don't agree with referendums anyway.

Tosh.  If you make it about regions, you making it about division.  Its about the whole of the UK - not which little bit of it wanted what.

Proportional Representation would be good thing. An end to protest votes, and better engagement with the voters because of it.