[Merged]Brexit stuff

[sirja]

No idea what was in that bill. The referendum was quoted in the manifesto. The government was elected. Parliament confirmed the terms of the referendum. The people voted. The government is implementing as agreed. No extra vote required.

While I agree with your overall statement, you must understand that the if we to go with your summation, then the only thing the govt has a mandate to do is what was in the 'terms of the referendum' which is to leave the EU. That and ONLY That. The govt has NO mandate to leave the single market, the customs union, Europol, European Free skies...etc as none of these were mentioned in the 'terms of the referendum' neither is membership of the EU a mandatory requirement for the membership of the aforementioned bodies. So by all means a vote in parliament is not required to leave the EU, but it is required and is indeed mandatory if the membership of any other group, body is to be changed.
It's actually kind of like the Merchant of Venice really, 'The contract entitles you to a certain weight of flesh and nothing more'

[WTFH]

The people voted. The government is implementing as agreed.

What do you mean by "as agreed".
If the government is implementing the pledges in the publicity - i.e. The things that made people vote the way they did, then that's "as agreed"
Or do you mean the government is implementing what it wants, irrespective of what was promised/pledged or what the people or other politicians want?

[Old Greg]

No idea what was in that bill. The referendum was quoted in the manifesto. The government was elected. Parliament confirmed the terms of the referendum. The people voted. The government is implementing as agreed. No extra vote required.

It is encouraging that you, CUK's prime defender of parliamentary supremacy don't know about the Bill of Rights.

[GB9]

It may be one of the reasons for leaving but that's not relevant to whether power resides with parliament or government to undo the laws by which the ECJ has legal status. Presumably you agree that laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament, as per the 1689 Bill of Rights?

No idea what was in that bill. The referendum was quoted in the manifesto. The government was elected. Parliament confirmed the terms of the referendum. The people voted. The government is implementing as agreed. No extra vote required.

[Old Greg]

At this level it's more about getting the correct outcome than winning or losing.

More interestingly, the arguments for and against weren't much more complex than the ones we have on here. One of my favourites was that if we left the EU we wouldn't be able to appeal to the ecj. Well wasn't that one of the reasons for leaving?

It may be one of the reasons for leaving but that's not relevant to whether power resides with parliament or government to undo the laws by which the ECJ has legal status. Presumably you agree that laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament, as per the 1689 Bill of Rights?

[GB9]

I would say that Lord Pannick who retired from the Supreme Court is the most authoritative and respected QC in the UK. It is highly doubtful that he would lose a case even if it is against the government and appealed in the SC.

At this level it's more about getting the correct outcome than winning or losing.

More interestingly, the arguments for and against weren't much more complex than the ones we have on here. One of my favourites was that if we left the EU we wouldn't be able to appeal to the ecj. Well wasn't that one of the reasons for leaving?

[Paddy]

Well, you never know once it's chucked into the court system. I'm hoping it gets appealed to the European Court of Justice, just for the lolz.

Just had a think about this, (apart from the European Court of Justice would be the wrong court for the most part of the case) but some aspects of the case could be appealed to the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) which incidentally in not part of the EU membership.

[Old Greg]

I would say that Lord Pannick who retired from the Supreme Court is the most authoritative and respected QC in the UK. It is highly doubtful that he would lose a case even if it is against the government and appealed in the SC.

Well, you never know once it's chucked into the court system. I'm hoping it gets appealed to the European Court of Justice, just for the lolz.

[Paddy]

The government's jurisdiction is a matter of some dispute.



Supreme Court Article 50 court case day 3: Lord Chief Justice was 'baffled' by the UK government's key arguments - Business Insider

As it happens, I think parliament should have a vote and that they should vote to trigger Article 50, but they would then have an opportunity to put parliamentary checks and balances on the government's exercise of the royal prerogative in the negotiation period.

I would say that Lord Pannick who retired from the Supreme Court is the most authoritative and respected QC in the UK. It is highly doubtful that he would lose a case even if it is against the government and appealed in the SC.

[Old Greg]

Stick to your guns. You're becoming more Irish by the day, or at least like my missus' version.

Grand so.