Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

(04-11-2016 11:46 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:02 )4waydiablo Wrote:  Brexiteers: We want UK judges deciding on UK legal matters!

So UK judges decide on a UK legal matter.

Brexiteers: UK judges are the enemies of the people!

So you think an hand full of judges overturning a demographic vote by millions is ok?

Of course I assume if they tried to over turn a remain vote to a leave this would be fine?

Looking for loop holes.

There you go again completely twistiing & misinterpreting the facts. I don't know what conspiracy claptrap you care to dream up but the facts are that the judges have simply reaffirmed that the law states that parliament is sovereign in this matter and therefore it is Parliament that must trigger Article 50.

Nowhere have the judges said that they are overturning the will of the majority who voted for Brexit. They have no legal view on the rights & wrongs of Brexit.

Brexiteers wanted Parliament to be sovereign. This proves that it is!

(04-11-2016 11:46 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:02 )4waydiablo Wrote:  Brexiteers: We want UK judges deciding on UK legal matters!

So UK judges decide on a UK legal matter.

Brexiteers: UK judges are the enemies of the people!

So you think an hand full of judges overturning a demographic vote by millions is ok?

Of course I assume if they tried to over turn a remain vote to a leave this would be fine?

Looking for loop holes.

The judges did not overturn the decision of millions of people they overturned the Prime Minister's decision to enact Article 50 by Royal Prerogative. Article 50 and how it should be triggered was never part of the referendum, the idea that you can base the question of how we exit on the question of whether we exit is akin to the old story of the foolish man who built his house on sand. Case in point this very verdict.

Article 50 will be triggered by a sovereign parliamentary vote which was a very large chunk of what leaving was about, greater parliamentary sovereignty

You got what you wanted. Congratulations

Tories have a majority of 15 and still they cant get stuff done

in fact a tory mp just quit and hour or so ago. thats 2 in a week after zack goldsmith quit last week

A Daily Mail reader responds to the court judgement.

(04-11-2016 11:43 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:06 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Thats brexit logic for you but if Remain had won the brexit lot would be saying 16millon plus voted to Leave they thoughts must be taken to account

Therein lies the point, they would have accepted the result utterly and completely;

Oh No They Wouldn't!

They didn't accept the 1975 result, did they? And that was 66-34 in favour of Remain!

(04-11-2016 12:10 )SecretAgent Wrote:  There you go again completely twistiing & misinterpreting the facts. I don't know what conspiracy claptrap you care to dream up but the facts are that the judges have simply reaffirmed that the law states that parliament is sovereign in this matter and therefore it is Parliament that must trigger Article 50.

Nowhere have the judges said that they are overturning the will of the majority who voted for Brexit. They have no legal view on the rights & wrongs of Brexit.

Brexiteers wanted Parliament to be sovereign. This proves that it is!

I think probably you're over reacting and some what paranoid.

Firstly that post wasn't even to you.

Secondly I have argued nothing against 'reaffirmed that the law states that parliament is sovereign in this matter and therefore it is Parliament that must trigger Article 50'

My comment was to this:

'Brexiteers: UK judges are the enemies of the people!'

The implication is that brexiters some how think that this judges decision coupled with the parliamentery vote is somehow going to over turn the brexit vote, which, can indeed happen if the parliament vote went that way; if parliament voted against triggering article 50 then the UK cannot leave the EU, that much seems pretty simple, it's a massive opt out opputunity for those who are against brexit, but that would still mean a hand full of people ignoring millions.

You either piss off 50% of the remainers or 50% of the brexiters.

The judges ratifying the above is just part of it, if that person had said parliament I would have said the same thing but substitue judges for parliament.

It's not me who is seeking a parlimentery vote, I is not one of the judges, I'm not getting hysterial about this vote nor am I creaming my self that this might over turn the Brexit vote, talk of conspiracy theories seem exaggerated.

I told you, I didn't vote, wereas I could clearly see all the problems that the remianers where living in denial about (especailly on here), the potential for it being a great move for the UK; the economy of the country and it's possiton in the world finantially, plus coming out of a bad recession, I really couldn't see any point in upsetting the apple cart.

But out it was and if the UK did a u turn now it's name would be mud and it would be the bitch of the rest of the EU.

So stop being an angry person and stop adopting an attack stance, tis very silly.

(04-11-2016 15:04 )Doddle Wrote:  They didn't accept the 1975 result, did they? And that was 66-34 in favour of Remain!

Yes they did.

They did not over turn the decision in 1976 but a different vote in different times with different social/ econimical pressures occured.

(04-11-2016 12:21 )southsidestu Wrote:  The judges did not overturn the decision of millions of people they overturned the Prime Minister's decision to enact Article 50 by Royal Prerogative. Article 50 and how it should be triggered was never part of the referendum, the idea that you can base the question of how we exit on the question of whether we exit is akin to the old story of the foolish man who built his house on sand. Case in point this very verdict.

If that is true what you say there, that these judges HAVE DIRECTLY over turned Article 50 by Royal Prerogative but to send it to parliamentary vote, and since Article 50 is the only way the UK can leave the EU, and if parliament votes not to trigger article 50 then pretty much they have over turned the the vote on a point of law.

You tell me what would happen if pailiament voted in favour of not triggering article 50?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/eu-...ck-brexit/

What would the other 2 thirds vote be?

And I didn't vote so I'm not a remain or brexit, I can see both sides of the coin; it's just on here if you're not fully remain you must therefore be the enemy.

If parliament do not vote to trigger article 50 then that is their doing not the courts. They are following the law that says that the only will of the people is an act of Parliament. Referndums are not legally binding and so they cannot adhere to them

(04-11-2016 19:46 )southsidestu Wrote:  If parliament do not vote to trigger article 50 then that is their doing not the courts. They are following the law that says that the only will of the people is an act of Parliament. Referndums are not legally binding and so they cannot adhere to them

Yes I get that. We have stated even on here that the referendum was not legally binding but advisory, but the PM both Camerroon and May were to abide by the vote decision, Camroon resigned and May was to do it.

But you stated that basically the Prime minister was going to trigger article 50 under Royal Prerogative, which I take to mean she would have done so without consulting parliament; which would have been by March next year.

These judges have just popped up from no where it seems to me and stated, well no there, this is not legal, we have found this here loop hole that says you have to take it to parlimentery vote, of which two thirds are remain.

Coming to think of it, why were these judges involved? Did someone take this to them or was it off their own bat? I know May was a remain, is there some skulduggery on her part.

COMPIRACY, COMPIRACY I TELL YOU