Originally posted by jamesbrown
View Post
-
I am afraid that OG's vision of most things doesn't extend further than the end of his bulbous nose, and even then it tends to be rather blurred and short-sighted. If and when he DOES state any preference, it tends to be predicated on whatever gloomy nonsense the Grauniad has filled his cobwebbed little cranium with on that day.
“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain” -
Parliament voted 6-1 to have the referendum.Originally posted by Lance View Post
The Government stated it would enact the result.
The Government holds jurisdiction in such matters.
The fact they even went to the country demonstrates that this decision was over and above Parliament.
Even the House of Lords agrees that they won't stop Brexit.Comment
-
Anyone would think the English want Scotland to go forth.....Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostComment
-
They "even went to the country" because parliament voted 6-1 for the referendum. It wasn't for some other special reason.Originally posted by GB9 View Post
It could also be stated that it was an election promise, but then again, if we start looking at promises made to secure results, the NHS would be £350million a week better off.…Maybe we ain’t that young anymoreComment
-
The government's jurisdiction is a matter of some dispute.Originally posted by GB9 View Post
Supreme Court Article 50 court case day 3: Lord Chief Justice was 'baffled' by the UK government's key arguments - Business InsiderBritain's Lord Chief Justice was 'baffled' by a key argument in the Article 50 case
The Lord Chief Justice said he was "baffled" by one of the UK government's key arguments on the final day of the blockbuster Article 50 legal battle.
Three of the UK's most senior judges met in the High Court to hear arguments on whether Theresa May's government is legally required to pass an act of parliament before triggering Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.
Jason Coppel QC, representing the government, argued that EU citizenship rights, which Brits currently enjoy, have never been part of parliament's decision-making remit. He added that "none" of the rights Brits have as EU citizens would be affected by Article 50 being triggered.
Basically, he argues, that the UK parliament has never been under obligation to consider or discuss EU citizenship rights in parliament, so any change to the current situation does not need approval granted by MPs.
Lord Chief Justice Thomas, the most senior judge in the country, said he was "baffled" by this arrangement and suggested that EU citizenship rights, which will be lost once Article 50 is invoked, are a matter for parliamentary consultation.
"I'm baffled," Lord Thomas said. "These rights are under treaty. If amending the treaty, parliamentary approval is needed. So, I don't understand why the content of these rights are not controlled by parliament?"
These rights are under treaty. If amending the treaty, parliamentary approval is needed.
Coppel spoke alongside James Eadie QC, who was representing the government. He argued that parliament had already had a big say in the referendum process and fallout.
"There has already been considerable parliamentary involvement - in the 2015 act and the opposition motion tabled last week - and there will be in the future," he said.
Lord Pannick, representing lead claimant Gina Miller, who Business Insider interviewed in August, said the government had "no answer" to the argument that triggering Article 50 would lead to rights being destroyed without parliament's approval.
"There is no dispute, that once notification is given, there is a direct causal link between notification and the removal of statutory rights ... the consequence of notification is to destroy rights and take the preservation of rights out of parliament's hands. This cannot be done. By the time parliament comes to look at the matter, the dye will already be set."
Tuesday marked the final day of the High Court battle which got underway on Thursday.
If the judges rule in the claimants' favour, Prime Minister May must pass an act of Parliament before invoking Article 50, rather than simply exercising prerogative power. A decision is expected in mid-November.
The claimants are expected to launch an appeal to the Supreme Court if the judges rule against them. This would likely force the government to push back its March deadline for triggering Article 50.
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.Comment
-
Don't be so cynical. The only thing that would stop the NHS from getting its £350 million per week is people like you talking the economy down.Originally posted by WTFH View PostComment
-
…Maybe we ain’t that young anymoreComment
-
On the flip side, where's Osborne's emergency budget and when is The - soon to be non-existent - Jungle moving to Dover?Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
It's fair to say that there were claims that both side's made that wouldn't/didn't/won't come to pass.Comment
-
I did laugh at that. Towards the bottom of the page it mentions that model train sets are far more attractive to those outside the UK and more so those outside the EU (because of the lack of VAT).Originally posted by WTFH View PostComment
-
The £350 million per week is definitely happening.Originally posted by The_Equalizer View PostComment
Comment