|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 11, 2023 14:42:40 GMT
Show me this written constitution? Bit difficult, given that it's unwritten. You can find plenty of judicial precedents to the effect that one Parliament can't bind another, I'm sure. If you want a break down of what a PM (like Cameron) is allowed to do on Parliament's behalf, take a look at the SC's judgment in the decision handed down when Boris tried to prorogue Parliament. Hi, sorry to butt in...I think they're all getting themselves in the usual lather about this "Constitution" in that yes it is written it's just not codified like the US constitution in that it forms a single document with various amendments...Americans need simplicity. The UK adopts a different principle but the constituents of it are indeed written into law....I mean we could have had some colourfully bedecked tribal juju men sitting in a straw hut in a trance and banging drums, waving animal bones around whilst reciting passages for it to passing lawyers....who knows....might be better and be a tourist attraction....anyway I hope you're having a nice day...lovely and warm here in the Sarf East.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2023 14:45:43 GMT
ConundrumWe have a general election every 5 years to decide what kind of government we want to govern our country. We have a referendum to decide only one question ... do we wish to be a member of the European Union. Seven years later, the British electorate have changed their minds on how they voted in that referendum, and another referendum today would produce not only the opposite result, but by a bigger margin. But unlike a genereal election, there s no more opportunity to return to the question, and so today we live in a nation where the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU, but are told "Thats It", you voted ONCE, and thats the life long, eternal result, never to be revisited. Therefore, when the 2024 general election comes along, how about we make the result of that election permanent, never to be revisited for at least a generation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- We cannot keep on having a referendum on EU membership, that would be silly, because we cannot keep on joining and then leaving the EU. To me, it proves the futileness and stupidity of running the country via a series of referendums, we elect governments to govern the country in what they feel are in our best interests. All four main political parties were broadly in favour of EU membership, it was a Tory Prime Minister who took us there in the first place, because they felt it was in our interests. The country voted Tory in 1970 with a policy of joining the EEC, and Labour gave us a referendum in 1975, which resulted in a REMAIN victory by a margin of 2:1 Sid, Labour could stand on a rejoin the EU manifesto at the next election. That would be really interesting. Like Jo Swinson did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2023 14:47:17 GMT
Errm, no it doesn't. I don't think that you understand what "legally binding" is. OK. It was not legally binding. It was, however, practically binding, which is why we're out, thanks to Boris and his courage standing up to the opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 14:52:20 GMT
For the last time, I normally charge for this ...LOL
Brexit is a historical and legal fact.
There is no mechanism by which any court anywhere could order Brexit to be undone.
There is no court order that can undo Brexit.
There is no court of competent jurisdiction that can undo Brexit.
The only way the United Kingdom can (re)join the European Union is by the process under Article 49 (the one that comes before Article 50).
And such an application, if it is ever made, will not be quick – not least that the European Union would want to see a settled political consensus in the United Kingdom in favour of (re)joining.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 14:54:42 GMT
ConundrumWe have a general election every 5 years to decide what kind of government we want to govern our country. We have a referendum to decide only one question ... do we wish to be a member of the European Union. Seven years later, the British electorate have changed their minds on how they voted in that referendum, and another referendum today would produce not only the opposite result, but by a bigger margin. But unlike a genereal election, there s no more opportunity to return to the question, and so today we live in a nation where the majority of people would vote to rejoin the EU, but are told "Thats It", you voted ONCE, and thats the life long, eternal result, never to be revisited. Therefore, when the 2024 general election comes along, how about we make the result of that election permanent, never to be revisited for at least a generation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- We cannot keep on having a referendum on EU membership, that would be silly, because we cannot keep on joining and then leaving the EU. To me, it proves the futileness and stupidity of running the country via a series of referendums, we elect governments to govern the country in what they feel are in our best interests. All four main political parties were broadly in favour of EU membership, it was a Tory Prime Minister who took us there in the first place, because they felt it was in our interests. The country voted Tory in 1970 with a policy of joining the EEC, and Labour gave us a referendum in 1975, which resulted in a REMAIN victory by a margin of 2:1 Sid, Labour could stand on a rejoin the EU manifesto at the next election. That would be really interesting. Like Jo Swinson did. We all know they won't do that, they will wait until they are in government. Once they have control they will be thinking they can control any backlash. Making up constitutions and it was only advisory. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 15:08:47 GMT
For the last time, I normally charge for this ...LOL Brexit is a historical and legal fact. There is no mechanism by which any court anywhere could order Brexit to be undone. There is no court order that can undo Brexit. There is no court of competent jurisdiction that can undo Brexit. The only way the United Kingdom can (re)join the European Union is by the process under Article 49 (the one that comes before Article 50). And such an application, if it is ever made, will not be quick – not least that the European Union would want to see a settled political consensus in the United Kingdom in favour of (re)joining. You have already missed another trick, they know they are facing a rubbish turnout, so they are already turning it into, the Tories weren't given a mandate either as they didn't get over 50% of the vote. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 11, 2023 15:10:00 GMT
No we don't. No it isn't. A lot of people think that they vote for a party leader because they think that's how it works. They are of course wrong. Yes we do . Leaders are compared and large numbers vote for their favorite. People thinking they are voting according to party leaders means that that is what they are doing. No it doesn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2023 15:12:10 GMT
Only advisory, not legally binding makes no difference. We were promised that a vote to leave would be honoured. We are living in times when promises no longer matter where the lowest common denominator rules. Where the wants and demands of the individual over-rule any democratic vote or need. Society is sunk in a sea of minority demands. We see Sunak foisted on us against the rules set out for Party leader election. We see Boris ousted for little reason than Westminster runs scared of him.
We have a Civil Service that is barely civil let alone doing their job without political favour. We have children being indoctrinated because a minority demands it while parents and teachers rest their heads in their hands pondering. The main fact in all this is that the atmosphere of fear is well embedded and the rest of us lack the will or backbone to stand and call time on all of it.
We reap what we sow sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 15:35:48 GMT
Referendum
The government maintains that the decision to depart has been taken by the referendum on 23 June and that its executive powers, under the royal prerogative, are sufficient for David Davis, the Brexit secretary, to give notice on behalf of the cabinet.
The attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, who will lead the government team, also asserts that initiating withdrawal does not change any UK laws and that the consequences will be subject to future negotiation and parliamentary scrutiny. The government’s lawyers also argue that the courts are “ill-suited” to decide on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 11, 2023 15:36:50 GMT
no, he did not. That isn't how it works The AV Referendum, in Brown’s mad arsed intent to rob Peter to pay paul, WAS binding. It was declared as so. Why, i don’t remember. But had it not been given the kicking it was given we would have been stuck with it The 2016 referendum was advisory. David Lammy was the first to say so and call for it to be ignored. Which says a lot about professional black labour politicians. Ok so work this out, the vote came in for Leave, then Cameron said 'no was only honoring it, if it was a vote to Remain'.
Cameron made a promise to the electorate he would honor the result regardless, he can not back track on that 'promise', once he made it, even if he did back track it would be challenged in the high courts, and guess what, he would lose, and the vote for Leave would be 'legally binding', people really don't know the law, they only 'think' what the law 'should' be.
Cameron, you might recall, declared that if, and ONLY if the 2015 general election returned a majority conservative government then he would offer the people a referendum on remaining in or leaving the european union. A referendum in which he would campaign with every fibre of his body and soul to remain in the EU And he did He also promised (when he thought he would win) he would take our decision to the european union the very next day Have you forgotten how Nigel Farage, interviewed at about the time the polls closed, declared he had out up a good fight but it appeared to him the remain vote had the day. Have you also forgotten how the cowardly piece of shit who said he would take our choice to the EU went on radio and tv two hours after the remainer dimbleby looked straight at the camera at 06.02 and stated through a gob full of lemons that ‘britain was leaving the european union’ Cameron paid the price and took his cocaine snorting chancellor with him. Now. I have tried to show how the legislation that underpinned the 2016 referendum allowed two separate types of referendum and the two faced sticker of a dick in a pig (allegedly) chose to give us one that was not binding on the government that created it. Nothing, absolutely nothing, any politician on any side of the debate ir the chamber could say or do short of taking down the government, calling an election and surviving the vote of the people, ciujd gave altered that. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 15:40:08 GMT
Referendum The government maintains that the decision to depart has been taken by the referendum on 23 June and that its executive powers, under the royal prerogative, are sufficient for David Davis, the Brexit secretary, to give notice on behalf of the cabinet.The attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, who will lead the government team, also asserts that initiating withdrawal does not change any UK laws and that the consequences will be subject to future negotiation and parliamentary scrutiny. The government’s lawyers also argue that the courts are “ill-suited” to decide on the matter. Ok so work this out, the vote came in for Leave, then Cameron said 'no was only honoring it, if it was a vote to Remain'.
Cameron made a promise to the electorate he would honor the result regardless, he can not back track on that 'promise', once he made it, even if he did back track it would be challenged in the high courts, and guess what, he would lose, and the vote for Leave would be 'legally binding', people really don't know the law, they only 'think' what the law 'should' be.
Cameron, you might recall, declared that if, and ONLY if the 2015 general election returned a majority conservative government then he would offer the people a referendum on remaining in or leaving the european union. A referendum in which he would campaign with every fibre of his body and soul to remain in the EU And he did He also promised (when he thought he would win) he would take our decision to the european union the very next day Have you forgotten how Nigel Farage, interviewed at about the time the polls closed, declared he had out up a good fight but it appeared to him the remain vote had the day. Have you also forgotten how the cowardly piece of shit who said he would take our choice to the EU went on radio and tv two hours after the remainer dimbleby looked straight at the camera at 06.02 and stated through a gob full of lemons that ‘britain was leaving the european union’ Cameron paid the price and took his cocaine snorting chancellor with him. Now. I have tried to show how the legislation that underpinned the 2016 referendum allowed two separate types of referendum and the two faced sticker of a dick in a pig (allegedly) chose to give us one that was not binding on the government that created it. Nothing, absolutely nothing, any politician on any side of the debate ir the chamber could say or do short of taking down the government, calling an election and surviving the vote of the people, ciujd gave altered that. The UK referendum was legally binding, the government used its 'executive powers, under the royal prerogative' to make it legally binding and trigger our departure from the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 15:42:11 GMT
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the sovereign and which have become widely vested in the government.
In law, a prerogative is an exclusive right bestowed by a government or state and invested in an individual or group, the content of which is separate from the body of rights enjoyed under the general law. It was a common facet of feudal law. The word is derived from Old French prerogative
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 16:05:52 GMT
So, there you are Boris and you never made the grade. Even with the constant warnings, the day you met the Queen was your chance to show you were worthy. But alas you went off on your own mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 16:38:11 GMT
For the last time, I normally charge for this ...LOL There is no mechanism by which any court anywhere could order Brexit to be undone. LOL!!! From the fine legal mind that brought us the idea that Cameron made a 'verbal contract' with the nation!!! There is a mechanism: it's called Parliament. Of course, there would be no point in Parliament voting to rejoin the EU if the EU wasn't prepared to accept the UK back, but that's an altogether thing from saying there is no mechanism.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 16:38:38 GMT
Referendum The government maintains that the decision to depart has been taken by the referendum on 23 June and that its executive powers, under the royal prerogative, are sufficient for David Davis, the Brexit secretary, to give notice on behalf of the cabinet.The attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, who will lead the government team, also asserts that initiating withdrawal does not change any UK laws and that the consequences will be subject to future negotiation and parliamentary scrutiny. The government’s lawyers also argue that the courts are “ill-suited” to decide on the matter. LOL again!!!! If the referendum was legally binding, why didn't the Brexiters take the government to court to make them enforce the result? Did you forget? Were you washing your hair? What was going on? It's not very important, but I might as well point it out: saying that there is a legal mechanism for the Government to 'give notice on behalf of the cabinet' under its Royal prerogative powers is a very, very different thing from saying that the Government is legally obliged to use its prerogative powers because the PM made a promise. There isn't a chance in hell that a Daily Mail chav has the capacity to understand that, so let's just keep this simple: why didn't the Brexiters take the government to court to force it to enact the referendum result if the the government was legally obliged to do so, as you claim? |
|
