Who Rules This Country, The Government On The People's Behalf, The Government Who Make The Laws Or The Judges Who's Job It Is To Enforce The Law?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898716/D-Day-Brexit-Britain-s-exit-EU-DELAYED-landmark-court-case-rules-Theresa-start-EU-talks-without-MPs-vote.html

[anotheoldgit]

naomi24

/// Zeuhl! Where have you been?! Are you ok? You're the second welcome return to the fold in two days. Krom came back yesterday. Things are looking up! :o) ///

Heard anything about sp1814 naomi?

[naomi24]

I haven't seen him around for a while, aog.

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi 'the will of the people will be ridden roughshod over.'
The will of the people was never guaranteed to succeed, that's the main thrust of my objections.

'this judgement,[ ] will succeed in overturning democracy.'
It was never a guarantee that the result would be carried through. This (as proven by my 13.15 link) was available for all voters to read prior to voting i.e. the 'democracy' of the whole vote wasn't cut and dried.

[Zeuhl]

naomi
lovely of you to notice xxx

I'm fine thank you. I've been travelling a lot, partly for pleasure and partly due to setting up two new businesses.

So I have not been in prison as some may have suspected.

Anyway, I saw the article by a friend of a friend and immediately thought of you guys;

I thought 'I bet there's some argy-bargy on AnswerBank that could use that analysis' LOL

Keep well y'awl x

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master, the electorate was told that its wishes would be complied with - 'no ifs or buts'. They are now in the process of being stitched up.

[naomi24]

Zeuhl, good to see you back and the best of luck with your new ventures. x

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi, 'Zacs-Master, the electorate was told that its wishes would be complied with - 'no ifs or buts'. They are now in the process of being stitched up'

We were told, I agree and the Govt need taking to tasdk on this. But we weren't stitched up. The evidence was plain to read, if you took the time.

[jno]

all this talk of regaining British sovereignty and people actually want to scupper British courts, the British parliament and what there is of a British constitution, the minute they don't like a court ruling. Merkel must be looking on in amusement.

[naomi24]

jno, no, we don't want to scupper British courts - we simply want democracy to prevail .... well at least some of us do.

[Zacs-Master]

Oh dear, oh dear....it...was....never....a...democratic....process (If you took the time to read the facts) as has been proven by the court ruling. If it had been democratically enshrined in law, then the ruling would have been against the actions brought.

[Old_Geezer]

People actually want to British courts to fairly interpret the law, which is a reason an appeal is possible. But prior to that they want those who lost a vote to accept it and not use whatever legal means they can to scupper the action the majority voted for. Still I trust they will ensure the vote gores through anyway and we can get on with the process without delay. I'm still unsure why they aren't holding the debate and vote now but waiting until, December is it ? Playing into the saboteurs' hands.

[Old_Geezer]

Referendums are inherently democratic. I don't see how that can be disputed. The issue is around the rules which didn't make it legally binding but relied on the honesty and decency of all to accept the result.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Haven't followed the whole thread, so apologies if I'm repeating points already made.

The legal argument seems to be that Article 50 can't be invoked without the consent of Parliament. I thought that parliamentary consent was implicitly given by the Referendum Bill (on a previous thread I had objected to a poster's use of the phrase "advisory referendum"). I learn now from one of the successful litigants who was being interviewed on TV that, yes, Parliament DID vote for the referendum, but, no, IT WAS NOT agreeing to be bound by the result. What then was the point of a referendum if a vote to leave needed ratification by a group the majority of whom are Remainers? I conclude that the bill was poorly, maybe cynically drafted. I'd like to see Parliament vote now on invoking Article 50. This vote will determine whether the referendum result is honoured or ignored. This has nothing to do with hard, soft, in or out of the single market, or the terms of exit (arguing for "more clarification of the government's stance" on any of these issues - as in Corbyn's schoolboy list of 170 questions - as a precondition for approving the invocation of Article 50 is a device to delay or prevent Brexit). The referendum was about quitting the EU, not the details attending the withdrawal . Cameron to the people: "Do you want to remain in the European Community or leave it? We [the Government] will implement your decision.".


We've had the legal case, now let's have the moral one. If Cameron's promise was as empty as the man, then let Parliament now ensure the promise IS honoured. If the vote goes against the government then let's have a correcly drafted bill for a second referendum.

PS: If May had invoked Article 50 immediately it wouldn't have changed the law. Would she now be obliged legally to withdraw the resignation notice? Is there provision in the article for that?

[vulcan42]

Zacs-Master, from your link.
\\ Whatever the legal position, however, the political reality is that the government will have to respect the result. If the vote is to leave the EU, the Prime Minister will announce that the UK will indeed leave.//
No mention of Parliament having any say in the matter, nor does article 50 mention it

[jim360]

v-e "I conclude that the bill was poorly, maybe cynically drafted."

I dare say you've hit the nail on the head with this. The Referendum was given not so people could decide to leave the EU, but so that the government could safely say that we'd decided to stay. Didn't turn out that way, and now we are in this mess, but it certainly is not a mess of the court's making and the judges reached the only decision available. So will the Supreme court, when the government's appeal inevitably fails despite Theresa May's misplaced confidence.

[EDDIE51]

^^ I read that unless the government lawyers can come up with a new and valid reason the law lords ruling was wrong ( exceptionally unlikely) the supream court must uphold the ruling. This will have no real effect apart from making a lot of money for lawyers.
It will just delay the 'final exit' until after the next general election in 2020 as I forecast ( to much derision) a few weeks back.

[EDDIE51]

There is much talk of 'The will of the people ' on here over the EU referendum but the truth is 52% voted for leave, 48% voted remain and 28% could not be bothered to vote so can be assumed to be happy with the way things are. I make that 76% who either want to remain or are happy with the current situation. So the 'Will of the People' can hardly be said to favor 'Leave'

[fiction-factory]

Whils I support the judges on this one , I think the point you make is eddie is not relevant to the issue in the thread and is a dangerous one- the same could be said about every general election result for example

[EDDIE51]

Yes I agree, but unlike a general election this was a two way choice , only 37.4% of the population actually voted for 'Brexit'. The rest want to remain or do not care, I would say remaining would better suit 'The Will of the People' than leaving!

[-Talbot-]

I agree with FF ... you are talking nonsense EDDIE..