St Andrews Church Creatures Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Drop The Brexit Case Appeal?
Oliver Letwin thinks it a bad idea to go to the Supreme Court preferring the issue to be settled in Parliament. Do you think he has a point?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
Danny, you can read a summary of the judgement here, as PP has indicated;
https:/
https:/
Keep seeing 'The Will of the People' it is ONLY the will of 51.9% of those who bothered to vote, so around 36% of 'The People'. Less if you take into account those who were under 18 at the time of the referendum but will be effected by it . A majority of them were in favour of 'Remain'.
So a long way from being 'The Will of the People'.
So a long way from being 'The Will of the People'.
“Mikey, Khandro said it was " a point of law" I just would like to know what law it is a point of,”
“I am not doubting what the court has said I just want to know what law is involved.”
It is not a Statute, danny, so there is no legislation to refer to. The High Court ruled on a matter of the procedure adopted by the government to invoke A50. Government believed they could do so exercising the “Royal Prerogative” and the High Court ruled they cannot. The High Court and the Supreme Court often rule on matters which are not Statutory law.
I said following the High Court ruling (having read it in full) that I doubted it would be overturned on appeal (though stranger things have happened). The government is entitled to make its appeal to the Supreme Court but personally I think they would be better served to simply introduce the matter before Parliament as the High Court has ruled.
Yes, Eddie, you do keep posting the same “four-fifths of five-eights of sod all” argument. We’ve done it to death. Although I must say the introduction of your “babes-in-arms” diversion is a new twist. You suggest that “the majority of them were in favour of remain”. Firstly nobody knows that. The contention is only anecdotal and based on surveys (about as reliable as the opinion polls). Secondly, young people are not afforded the vote because, as everybody knows, until they reach the age of 18, they still know everything and have nothing to learn. It would be manifestly unfair to allow a vote to be skewed by such people.
“I am not doubting what the court has said I just want to know what law is involved.”
It is not a Statute, danny, so there is no legislation to refer to. The High Court ruled on a matter of the procedure adopted by the government to invoke A50. Government believed they could do so exercising the “Royal Prerogative” and the High Court ruled they cannot. The High Court and the Supreme Court often rule on matters which are not Statutory law.
I said following the High Court ruling (having read it in full) that I doubted it would be overturned on appeal (though stranger things have happened). The government is entitled to make its appeal to the Supreme Court but personally I think they would be better served to simply introduce the matter before Parliament as the High Court has ruled.
Yes, Eddie, you do keep posting the same “four-fifths of five-eights of sod all” argument. We’ve done it to death. Although I must say the introduction of your “babes-in-arms” diversion is a new twist. You suggest that “the majority of them were in favour of remain”. Firstly nobody knows that. The contention is only anecdotal and based on surveys (about as reliable as the opinion polls). Secondly, young people are not afforded the vote because, as everybody knows, until they reach the age of 18, they still know everything and have nothing to learn. It would be manifestly unfair to allow a vote to be skewed by such people.
“…most people in Britain did not vote to leave the EU. “
And by the very same token, Mikey, most people (even more than your “most”) did not vote to remain. Trot out the argument about those failing to vote preferring the status quo if you will (an argument that could not have been used had the vote been reversed by the same margin). All I can say is that if that’s what they wanted, knowing there was a chance of a Leave vote prevailing, they should have voted. It is no more valid to suggest that those not voting preferred the status quo than to say those same people preferred a change.
The rules of engagement for the referendum were quite clear – the majority of those voting would prevail. And I won’t even begin to address the ridiculous argument that the vote is not valid because children – who it is quite true will be effected by the outcome for the longest period of time - did not have a vote.
And by the very same token, Mikey, most people (even more than your “most”) did not vote to remain. Trot out the argument about those failing to vote preferring the status quo if you will (an argument that could not have been used had the vote been reversed by the same margin). All I can say is that if that’s what they wanted, knowing there was a chance of a Leave vote prevailing, they should have voted. It is no more valid to suggest that those not voting preferred the status quo than to say those same people preferred a change.
The rules of engagement for the referendum were quite clear – the majority of those voting would prevail. And I won’t even begin to address the ridiculous argument that the vote is not valid because children – who it is quite true will be effected by the outcome for the longest period of time - did not have a vote.
I just wonder what proportion of the electorate were just so confused (like the Scottish referendum), that even on voting day they were still none the wiser what the argument was about and felt unable to formulate an opinion either way?
Certainly, I heard it several times on Question Time and elsewhere that individuals just did not understand the advantages and disadvantages and so the easiest question to answer on paper became an insuperable one.
Of course, both sides were to blame for spouting ridiculous claims that addled many a brain meaning that many could not see the wood for the trees.
Certainly, I heard it several times on Question Time and elsewhere that individuals just did not understand the advantages and disadvantages and so the easiest question to answer on paper became an insuperable one.
Of course, both sides were to blame for spouting ridiculous claims that addled many a brain meaning that many could not see the wood for the trees.
"I just wonder what proportion of the electorate were just so confused (like the Scottish referendum), that even on voting day they were still none the wiser what the argument was about and felt unable to formulate an opinion either way?"
They probably make up a fair few of the 28% who did not vote. These are the voters who some people who argue about the validity of the poll (see above) suggest that since they did not vote to leave they should be counted as de facto "Remainers". If they didn't understand the issues and didn't vote they were neither Leavers nor Remainers and their numbers should not be considered.
They probably make up a fair few of the 28% who did not vote. These are the voters who some people who argue about the validity of the poll (see above) suggest that since they did not vote to leave they should be counted as de facto "Remainers". If they didn't understand the issues and didn't vote they were neither Leavers nor Remainers and their numbers should not be considered.
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.