Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Did The Mail Gone Too Far With Their Headline?
67 Answers
https:/
Why! they even described one judge as being an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.
/// But the Mailonline appeared to have second thoughts about alerting readers to the revelation that Sir Terence was an “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.” The headline was changed after widespread outrage across social media. ///
https:/
Why! they even described one judge as being an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.
/// But the Mailonline appeared to have second thoughts about alerting readers to the revelation that Sir Terence was an “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.” The headline was changed after widespread outrage across social media. ///
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, you are welcome if you like to believe that politicians would pay attention to expert advice. Problem is it's difficult to prove it as the experts in question are bound by the Official Secrets Act, so it's very unofficial and difficult-to-confirm any specific case. It's true all the same. Theresa May has a chequered history of ignoring expert advice. Ditto Iain Duncan Smith, in fact. And Chris Grayling. And the lot of them.
Jim, if a politician believes that rules appertaining to individuals such as Abu Hamza are detrimental to society’s best interests, I personally would want them to challenge those rules. Wouldn’t you? In the case of Brexit, the will of the people equates to democracy and that should not be challenged – by anyone - because that leads us to a very slippery slope.
With respect to Abu Hamza, the "rule" in question was something like whether to arrest him on Tuesday or Wednesday, so I don't see what there is to challenge.
As for Brexit: as the court case made clear, the principle of *parliamentary* democracy -- which is what we actually have in this country -- was being challenged by the government's intention to trigger Article 50 unilaterally. I would have thought that was worth preserving. You can bang on about the will of the people all you like, and morally you would be correct, but legally in this country, the will of the people manifests itself in Parliament.
As for Brexit: as the court case made clear, the principle of *parliamentary* democracy -- which is what we actually have in this country -- was being challenged by the government's intention to trigger Article 50 unilaterally. I would have thought that was worth preserving. You can bang on about the will of the people all you like, and morally you would be correct, but legally in this country, the will of the people manifests itself in Parliament.
I'm not sure how detailed your knowledge is of the law in this area, Naomi. Are you suggesting the judges have overlooked this aspect and have made an error in law based on your knowledge of legal matters? If the Supreme Court reverses the decision using your arguments then I will take my hat off to you.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court confirms the recent decision that the constitution requires parliament to decide will you accept that decision or go on challenging it and argue for a further appeal (to the European Court?)?
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court confirms the recent decision that the constitution requires parliament to decide will you accept that decision or go on challenging it and argue for a further appeal (to the European Court?)?
In fact, let me just quote from the ruling directly, since it's a point worth making:
"105. The Secretary of State's [David Davis] case regarding his ability to give notice under Article 50 was based squarely on the Crown's prerogative power. His counsel made it clear that he does note contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50."
My italics. But the basic point is that even the government doesn't agree with you, and they are the ones you are professing to support. You haven't a leg to stand on. The Referendum Act merely granted the power to hold a referendum, and said nothing about how the result was to be implemented afterwards. It was advisory.
"105. The Secretary of State's [David Davis] case regarding his ability to give notice under Article 50 was based squarely on the Crown's prerogative power. His counsel made it clear that he does note contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50."
My italics. But the basic point is that even the government doesn't agree with you, and they are the ones you are professing to support. You haven't a leg to stand on. The Referendum Act merely granted the power to hold a referendum, and said nothing about how the result was to be implemented afterwards. It was advisory.
Jim, //even the government doesn't agree with you//
The Prime Minister does. She said earlier today // "It was MPs who overwhelmingly decided to put the decision in their [the people’s] hands. The result was clear. It was legitimate."//
http://
I’m guessing that will form the basis of the government’s appeal against this decision … parliament has already voted - and it has.
The Prime Minister does. She said earlier today // "It was MPs who overwhelmingly decided to put the decision in their [the people’s] hands. The result was clear. It was legitimate."//
http://
I’m guessing that will form the basis of the government’s appeal against this decision … parliament has already voted - and it has.
I think Theresa May has to say that. She isn't go to say "yes we knew but we misled people" or "we cocked this up didn't we".
I struggle to see any grounds for appeal based on what i have read. Maybe Theresa may will just say that in order to avoid delays, the government will not appeal and will just put something suitable vague before the parliament- something like " implement the decision of the British people by invoking article 50 and securing the best possible terms for Brexit"
I struggle to see any grounds for appeal based on what i have read. Maybe Theresa may will just say that in order to avoid delays, the government will not appeal and will just put something suitable vague before the parliament- something like " implement the decision of the British people by invoking article 50 and securing the best possible terms for Brexit"
As I say, though, the submissions made in court acknowledge that what the PM is saying in TV interviews simply isn't correct. Sorry, but Theresa May is lying to you, or to herself, or both, in saying that the appeal has any realistic prospects of success. The Referendum Act (and the Referendum itself) provide no legal basis for simply implementing the result. I don't know why you insist on trying to argue otherwise.
Heck, even Farage has admitted today that the referendum was advisory, ie carried no legal power.
Heck, even Farage has admitted today that the referendum was advisory, ie carried no legal power.
Jim, I don’t see how she is lying. The question was put to parliament and MPs voted overwhelmingly to allow the people to decide. The criteria wasn’t that as long as the electorate voted to Remain the government would adhere to its wishes. That would have rendered the Referendum a completely pointless exercise. Parliament has voted.
I no longer understand what argument you are making, if I am honest. The referendum result was "advisory" in the sense that it was non-binding in law. This is fact, plain and simple. The Act in 2015 to allow the referendum was merely about allowing the referendum, not allowing the result. This is also fact. And therefore, since implementing the decision has consequences on the rights of British citizens that were enshrined in an Act of Parliament, only Parliament can vote (in a separate piece of legislation) to overturn those rights. This is what the judgement says. May is appealing it out of bloody-mindedness, nothing more.
What, exactly, are you arguing? That the judgement was wrong? No, you've said you accept it -- albeit with the caveat that the government's position may not have been presented well, and it is true that we will have to see what the Supreme Court returns. That the referendum result should still be accepted when Parliament votes on it? If so, I am not intending to argue against that either. That the Referendum Act provides the only vote needed by Parliament? But we have seen that this is bogus, both because the judgement confirms this and because the government, in reality, accepts it.
If it's simply frustration at the case being brought in the first place, that rage had better be directed against David Cameron, whose fault it really is that we are in this mess.
What, exactly, are you arguing? That the judgement was wrong? No, you've said you accept it -- albeit with the caveat that the government's position may not have been presented well, and it is true that we will have to see what the Supreme Court returns. That the referendum result should still be accepted when Parliament votes on it? If so, I am not intending to argue against that either. That the Referendum Act provides the only vote needed by Parliament? But we have seen that this is bogus, both because the judgement confirms this and because the government, in reality, accepts it.
If it's simply frustration at the case being brought in the first place, that rage had better be directed against David Cameron, whose fault it really is that we are in this mess.
Jim, //I no longer understand what argument you are making, if I am honest. The referendum result was "advisory" in the sense that it was non-binding in law. //
I don't know why you don't understand the argument I'm making. Only this morning you agreed that to deny the majority of those who voted their wish is morally wrong. Furthermore Theresa May, like me, doesn't accept that the referendum result was only 'advisory'. She says it was 'legitimate'. I would have thought the argument plain enough.
I don't know why you don't understand the argument I'm making. Only this morning you agreed that to deny the majority of those who voted their wish is morally wrong. Furthermore Theresa May, like me, doesn't accept that the referendum result was only 'advisory'. She says it was 'legitimate'. I would have thought the argument plain enough.
Seems to me that you are just mixing up legal and "moral" terms. The referendum was legally advisory. It is, or it should be, morally binding. However, Theresa May is almost certainly wasting her time trying to appeal the legal status of the referendum, and she really would be well-advised to not appeal and get on with introducing the necessary legislation to proceed. Anything else is, despite her claims, not "getting on with it" but just delaying the process.
Jim, I’m not mixing anything up. It’s quite simple. Bringing this before the court was immoral. The ruling was based upon the evidence presented and I doubt very much that the evidence included the fact that MPs had already voted on the matter.
// Theresa May is almost certainly wasting her time trying to appeal the legal status of the referendum//
For the reason stated above she doesn’t think she’s wasting her time and neither do I.
//she really would be well-advised to not appeal and get on with introducing the necessary legislation to proceed.//
Well advised? By whom? You? Sorry, Jim, but I don’t think your advice will be required.
I get the impression that you’re terrified she might succeed.
// Theresa May is almost certainly wasting her time trying to appeal the legal status of the referendum//
For the reason stated above she doesn’t think she’s wasting her time and neither do I.
//she really would be well-advised to not appeal and get on with introducing the necessary legislation to proceed.//
Well advised? By whom? You? Sorry, Jim, but I don’t think your advice will be required.
I get the impression that you’re terrified she might succeed.
Yes they went too far and so did the DT.
The judges were asked to interpret constitutional law and that they did, explaining that they were not commenting on Brexit or not, purely on process. This is almost akin to a public hanging and it's a damning indictment on our judicial system and constitution, what there is of it. In short, disgraceful and worrisome.
The judges were asked to interpret constitutional law and that they did, explaining that they were not commenting on Brexit or not, purely on process. This is almost akin to a public hanging and it's a damning indictment on our judicial system and constitution, what there is of it. In short, disgraceful and worrisome.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
Food & Drink65 mins ago
Crosswords260 mins ago
Crosswords308 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.