Post Brexit reality

big ears

Well-Known Member
So we vote for Brexit so that the British Judiciary can control our country and not be interfered with by Brussels. The British Judiciary make a ruling saying that Parliament needs to be involved in Brexit so the British Government go running to the European courts to over rule the British courts. Is it me or is there a touch of irony here?

BE
 

bk

Well-Known Member
Any change in law in this country must be brought about through parliament. I cannot see how the MPs would change the will of the country but what scares me is if they did bring about Brexit via a royal prerogative. That would set a presentance that would allow them to do god knows what in the future.

Call me a pessimist but the legal structure in the U.K. Is set up for a reason and ultimately is there to protect us
 

nicowilson

Well-Known Member
Any change in law in this country must be brought about through parliament. I cannot see how the MPs would change the will of the country but what scares me is if they did bring about Brexit via a royal prerogative. That would set a presentance that would allow them to do god knows what in the future.

Call me a pessimist but the legal structure in the U.K. Is set up for a reason and ultimately is there to protect us
Agreed.

To me the issue is simple - the law that gave the power to hold the referendum is defective. It should have said something like "and if it's a leave then we can go ahead and get on with it".

Perhaps this is a reflection on David Cameron's misplaced confidence in a "stay" vote.
 

big ears

Well-Known Member
Call me a pessimist but the legal structure in the U.K. Is set up for a reason and ultimately is there to protect us
Agree 100% and wasn't this what we were voting for to allow our courts the power to make the decisions and not be undermined by outside influence. To me this government threatening to circumvent the courts by going through other means is worrying if not hipocritical.

BE
 

Cloudhopper

Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm just thick but I thought we had a referendum. The decision making process was given to the people by parliament. The people decided to leave the EU and it's now up to the Government to make this happen. I can't see how the Judiciary can then say it needs to go back before Parliament. This is the stated case from Mrs May, the Judiciary does not rule this country.
CH
 

Gazza

Well-Known Member
There was never meant to be a Brexit and I believe somehow (fair or foul) there will never be one. Cameron pledged a referendum which he never considered he would loose. He more than likely had the victory speech written "The people have spoken etc" Boris etc fronted a leave campaign but where are they now. A sham "leave campaign" just to make it look good. If this goes to a parliamentary vote we are back to where we started or perhaps not. I think our friends in the EU will have their new conditions if we are forced to stay.
 

jimmy milnes

Well-Known Member
I think our friends in the EU will have their new conditions if we are forced to stay.
Absolutely bang on the money Gazza, if we don't go through with it were stuffed, we will get hammered to the wall to be made an example of
 

willie_gunn

Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm just thick but I thought we had a referendum. The decision making process was given to the people by parliament. The people decided to leave the EU and it's now up to the Government to make this happen. I can't see how the Judiciary can then say it needs to go back before Parliament. This is the stated case from Mrs May, the Judiciary does not rule this country.
CH
There are a few simple truths as to how this has come about.

Firstly, whilst Parliament may make the law, it is not above the law. That's an important principle that we all should support.

Second, the decision making process was not "given to the people" in the referendum on 23rd June. The EU Referendum Act 2015 contained no provision for triggering Article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU. Much as we may like to think that the result of the Referendum was binding, the reality is that all we were asked to do was give our opinion on whether we should stay in or leave the EU. Of course politicians talked up the Referendum because it was in their interests to do so, just as they did the same with the Scottish Independence Referendum back in 2014. As nicowilson said earlier, if the intention had been to make the EU referendum binding then it should have been phrased as such. It wasn't, so who's fault was that??

Third, for the Government to legally enforce the result of the referendum requires it to place a Bill before Parliament. This is the point that the High Court made in their judgement last week. Why can't the Government use its powers of Royal prerogative - i.e. why can't the Government just "make this happen"? Because in their ruling the High Court said:

"An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers."

Meaning that primary legislation is not covered by the Royal prerogative.

So it's not that the judiciary is saying that we can't leave the EU, only that to do so legally requires Parliament to pass a Bill because Parliament is sovereign. There was clear precedent for this, in that we joined the EEC through an Act of Parliament back in 1973. So to leave the EU also requires an Act of Parliament.

So the judiciary does not rule the country - but what it does do is adjudicate on whether the Government of the day is following due legal process in how it rules the country. In this case the Government wasn't.

If only the media spent less time vilifying the judiciary and more time explaining the facts!
 

african jack

Well-Known Member
How is going to appeal to the supreme court circumventing the courts :cuckoo:
Agree 100% and wasn't this what we were voting for to allow our courts the power to make the decisions and not be undermined by outside influence. To me this government threatening to circumvent the courts by going through other means is worrying if not hipocritical.

BE
 

big ears

Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm just thick but I thought we had a referendum. The decision making process was given to the people by parliament. The people decided to leave the EU and it's now up to the Government to make this happen. I can't see how the Judiciary can then say it needs to go back before Parliament. This is the stated case from Mrs May, the Judiciary does not rule this country.
CH
I can see where you are coming from but essentially if it is the government who decides then it is Less democratic than if parliament decides as there will be more room to debate rather than dictate. The deal is likely to represent the interest of the whole country not just the areas who voted Blue. I live in a very poor area of the country who do benefit from EU subsidies but also have an EU suppressed fishing industry. This situation needs to be debated and the best deal sort. I worry if it is totally left up to an essentially south eastern based government we in the provinces will be over looked.

BE
 

big ears

Well-Known Member
How is going to appeal to the supreme court circumventing the courts :cuckoo:
By not being willing to accept the ruling of the courts because it didn't give the answer they wanted. A bit like a child running to the other parent when they are told no by one. Obviously I'm not discribing any politician as behaving in a childish manner.
 

Greymaster

Well-Known Member
I can see where you are coming from but essentially if it is the government who decides then it is Less democratic than if parliament decides as there will be more room to debate rather than dictate. The deal is likely to represent the interest of the whole country not just the areas who voted Blue. I live in a very poor area of the country who do benefit from EU subsidies but also have an EU suppressed fishing industry. This situation needs to be debated and the best deal sort. I worry if it is totally left up to an essentially south eastern based government we in the provinces will be over looked.

BE
If we are talking about what is democratic, then the people have already decided to leave. This is the mandate to the Executive. Give notice to leave via A50.
 

african jack

Well-Known Member
It was the you lot that could not accept the result and went running to the courts to appeal so you think only you lot have the right to appeal Mrs May is going to the supreme court if it goes against you lot she should not wait till march but trigger article 50 immediately
By not being willing to accept the ruling of the courts because it didn't give the answer they wanted. A bit like a child running to the other parent when they are told no by one. Obviously I'm not discribing any politician as behaving in a childish manner.
 

big ears

Well-Known Member
It was the you lot that could not accept the result and went running to the courts to appeal so you think only you lot have the right to appeal Mrs May is going to the supreme court if it goes against you lot she should not wait till march but trigger article 50 immediately
And there was me thinking we were all in it together. Solidarity has had its day obviously!
 

nun_hunter

Well-Known Member
Leaving the EU has been decided the court ruling was about when Article 50 should be invoked not about not invoking it. From some of the comments it sounds like the leavers would rather rush headlong into it and get it over with rather than take a measured approach to it. Half the population didn't want to leave but we are but that doesn't mean that their opinions or wishes on how to best proceed should be ignored.

If there was a vote to overhaul or attempt to ban fields ports wouldn't it be right to let both sides of the argument thrash out a deal that benefits both sides?
 

Cloudhopper

Well-Known Member
There are a few simple truths as to how this has come about.

Firstly, whilst Parliament may make the law, it is not above the law. That's an important principle that we all should support.

Second, the decision making process was not "given to the people" in the referendum on 23rd June. The EU Referendum Act 2015 contained no provision for triggering Article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU. Much as we may like to think that the result of the Referendum was binding, the reality is that all we were asked to do was give our opinion on whether we should stay in or leave the EU. Of course politicians talked up the Referendum because it was in their interests to do so, just as they did the same with the Scottish Independence Referendum back in 2014. As nicowilson said earlier, if the intention had been to make the EU referendum binding then it should have been phrased as such. It wasn't, so who's fault was that??

Third, for the Government to legally enforce the result of the referendum requires it to place a Bill before Parliament. This is the point that the High Court made in their judgement last week. Why can't the Government use its powers of Royal prerogative - i.e. why can't the Government just "make this happen"? Because in their ruling the High Court said:

"An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers."

Meaning that primary legislation is not covered by the Royal prerogative.

So it's not that the judiciary is saying that we can't leave the EU, only that to do so legally requires Parliament to pass a Bill because Parliament is sovereign. There was clear precedent for this, in that we joined the EEC through an Act of Parliament back in 1973. So to leave the EU also requires an Act of Parliament.

So the judiciary does not rule the country - but what it does do is adjudicate on whether the Government of the day is following due legal process in how it rules the country. In this case the Government wasn't.

If only the media spent less time vilifying the judiciary and more time explaining the facts!
Thank WG, this makes it much clearer.
CH
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
By not being willing to accept the ruling of the courts because it didn't give the answer they wanted. A bit like a child running to the other parent when they are told no by one. Obviously I'm not discribing any politician as behaving in a childish manner.
For those of us unfortunate enough to have had dealings with the Home Office...on correct application of immigration law...under Mrs May's tenure that will come as no surprise. My opinion of her is that she is a stupid hectoring woman whose advancement beyond grammer school blackboard monitor has promoted her beyond her talent. Another SD member posted this cartoon on the other thread which I'll reproduce here for those that may not have seen it.

View attachment 76083
 
Last edited:

Top