|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 16:52:10 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? Plonker alert ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 16:53:09 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.  Plonker alert ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 16:54:27 GMT
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. Plonker alert ^^ I understand, mate. You just forgot. You had a legal right to enforce the result, but it just slipped your minds. It could happen to anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 16:55:15 GMT
I understand, mate. You just forgot. You had a legal right to enforce the result, but it just slipped your minds. It could happen to anyone. Plonker alert ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 11, 2023 16:56:08 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. Indeed.
Perhaps it's time to revisit the cut 'n paste of Remnant Myths?
Remoanian Myths.
Myth 1: Leavers didn't know what they were voting for.
Except that the government sent a leaflet to every household in the UK setting out exactly what leave meant: It meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Myth 2: The result wasn't decisive.
Except that 52% of the electorate voted Leave (vs 48% that voted Remain) compared to c33% that normally vote for the winning party in a General Election.
Or, if you prefer, 406 constituencies voted to leave (vs 242 for remain) compared to the c330 constituencies that normally vote for the winning party in a General Election.
Decisive by any relevant objective measure.
Myth 3: The Referendum was only advisory.
True, but irrelevant since it became law when Article 50 was enacted by parliament (which also negates 1 & 2 above).
Myth 4: People have changed their minds since.
And then Boris won a landslide on a “Get Brexit Done” ticket.
Myth 5: The "oven ready deal" was a lie.
The "oven ready deal" was the Withdrawal Agreement... which was already agreed when we left the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 16:56:29 GMT
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? Plonker alert ^^ You're in a bit of a bind, aren't you, Fairy? One of the following has to be true: 1) The referendum wasn't legally binding, so the Brexiters couldn't take the government to court to enforce the result; or 2) The referendum was legally binding but all the gammon Brexiters were too thick to realise it, so they didn't take the government to court. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 16:56:52 GMT
Poor old Darling is having a mental breakdown ... LOL it's fun watching him melting
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 16:58:48 GMT
Poor old Darling is having a mental breakdown ... LOL it's fun watching him melting It has to be one or the other of the above, Fairy. Either the whole body of gammons in the UK was too thick to realise they could have taken the government to court or the result just wasn't legally binding. Which was it? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 16:59:25 GMT
Poor old Darling is having a mental breakdown ... LOL it's fun watching him melting It has to be one or the other of the above, Fairy? Either the whole body of gammons in the UK was too thick to realise they could have taken the government to court or the result just wasn't legally binding. Which was it? Plonker alert ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 16:59:52 GMT
Darling is having a meltdown ....LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 17:00:30 GMT
It has to be one or the other of the above, Fairy? Either the whole body of gammons in the UK was too thick to realise they could have taken the government to court or the result just wasn't legally binding. Which was it? Plonker alert ^^ LOL!!! So, you just forgot to take the government to court, did you? It could happen to anyone, Fairy |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 17:01:34 GMT
Darling is having a meltdown ....LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 17:03:06 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. Indeed.
Perhaps it's time to revisit the cut 'n paste of Remnant Myths?
Remoanian Myths.
Myth 1: Leavers didn't know what they were voting for.
Except that the government sent a leaflet to every household in the UK setting out exactly what leave meant: It meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Myth 2: The result wasn't decisive.
Except that 52% of the electorate voted Leave (vs 48% that voted Remain) compared to c33% that normally vote for the winning party in a General Election.
Or, if you prefer, 406 constituencies voted to leave (vs 242 for remain) compared to the c330 constituencies that normally vote for the winning party in a General Election.
Decisive by any relevant objective measure.
Myth 3: The Referendum was only advisory.
True, but irrelevant since it became law when Article 50 was enacted by parliament (which also negates 1 & 2 above).
Myth 4: People have changed their minds since.
And then Boris won a landslide on a “Get Brexit Done” ticket.
Myth 5: The "oven ready deal" was a lie.
The "oven ready deal" was the Withdrawal Agreement... which was already agreed when we left the EU.
Gina Miller unsuccessfully tried to legally cancel Brexit by making a legal case that it was only a 'advisory referendum' and as we know her case for that argument got kick out of court. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 17:03:27 GMT
Poor old Darling ...LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 17:05:06 GMT
Darling is having a meltdown ....LOL What's new, Darling hasn't mentioned why we should be taking the government to court anyway I might think its a good idea. |
|
