BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:13 AM

If Blair weighs in we're fucked. He's precisely the sort of person no-one wants involved in Brexit at all.

By the way, what happened to Farige the Garige's idea we could be like Norway and keep access to the single market? The Brexiteers seem to have developed an objection to the single market now. Was that more bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:21 AM

With his vastly inflated ego there is room for no others.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:05 AM


Never mind, Toxic tony blair is riding in to save us all

I noticed that as well. Presumably because he feels there are not enough people involved who are certain only they have all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

Never mind, Toxic tony blair is riding in to save us all, as we are not judged capable of voting on such important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:26 AM

And, having been gormless enough to be sucked in by the lies of Cameron, Bozo, Fararse and the Little Scottish Viper, you're now being even more gormless by allowing yourself to be sucked in by the lies of May who, despite her weasel-words, is a staunch Bremainer, and is seeking a means of defeating and abandoning Brexit in a way that will leave her and her allies with clean hands, and without egg on their faces.

Watch this space...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:17 AM

And, of course, Parliamentary Sovereignty (a.k.a. 'Taking Back Control') was one of the things Brexiteers voted for, wasn't it? Along with £350 million a week for the NHS, and kicking the immigrants out?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:13 AM

May wants to use the power of 'Royal Prerogative' to invoke Art. 50. The High Court has judged that a law passed by parliament cannot be trumped by Royal Prerogative. That's the fundamental principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty on which our entire constitution is based, and rightly so.

The legislation clearly stated that the referendum was 'advisory' only. A promise made by the Prime Minister cannot, and does not, change that piece of legislation. Only parliament can do that.

You were lied to by Cameron, he made a promise he could not legally fulfill - just one of a long sequence of lies and broken promises by him - because he was fighting for his political life, and he expected to win and not have to fulfill that promise.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 06:44 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 04:08 PM

No one is denying that the government said it would accept the referendum, keith. it was a promise, and one of the defining features of a promise is that it can be broken.

It was a promise to accept advice. The question before the courts is not about whether the referendum was advisory - that has been accepted to be the legal position. The question is whether the government has the ability to fulfil that promise without seeking and obtaining the agreement of parliament.

It would in fact have been possible to make the referendum binding - that had been done in the case of the previous referendum, on the voting system. But it wasn't done this time, and that was stated in the referendum bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:37 PM

Well done, BTW. I was suckered into responding good and proper :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:22 PM

All I have said has been factual.
The referendum was advisory.

You cannot challenge anything I say.
The plain black and white legislation is that it was advisory. Cannot be disputed.

"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
That was a lie by dodgy Dave and his mates.

Whatever the outcome, we all voted in the belief that our decision would be binding.
I certainly didn't. My belief was that it was advisory.

As to walking away. Yes, I would have, had I not been challenged otherwise.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:40 PM

All I have said on this has been factual.
You can not challenge anything I say.
Your only response has been abuse, insult, and now walking away.

Cabinet Office, 6th April, sent to every household.
"A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."

"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

No-one here or in Parliament or the media challenged that statement until the result came in.
Parliament did not question it and all the main parties made the same promises in their manifestos.

Parliament still has not challenged it. The legal challenge was brought by private individuals.

I predict that the appeal will fail. Whatever the legality, the Judiciary will be determined to demonstrate their independence from government and media pressure.

Whatever the outcome, we all voted in the belief that our decision would be binding.
If our "advice" in or out was decreed to be enforceable and to be enforced either way, it is no longer advice.
It is binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:16 AM

Steve, Dave, see you in the bar. Diet coke for me....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

I find the governments position rather akin to a used car salesman who has been found out clocking his vehicles. He is taken to court for misleading people but his argument is that the mileage on the car is what he promised it to be, regardless of the truth. It would be laughable if it wasn't going on at such a high level.

But, yes Steve, there is nothing more we can do or say. I'm out as well.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 04:52 AM

What could be, should be, would be is a rather meaningless discussion until the government appeal is heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 04:46 AM

So what on earth were you talking about, keith, when you said, in reference to precisely that point, that "Yes, it is disputed"?

It is disputed that the referendum was only advisory.
It was sold by all the main parties as a binding decision.
The people would decide, not Parliament.
No-one disputed the legitimacy of that pledge until the result came in.

Whatever "pledge" might have been given by the government in advance of the referendum, that can have no legal force. Laws don't work like that.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I can not argue that point.
You may be right, but I would remind you that until the appeal it is still in dispute.
Do you have inside information?
Do any of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 03:17 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:43 PM

What was that about a "veto?" 😂😂😂

Just leave Keith alone. If you feel like continuing this conversation with Keith, do yourself a favour and question your own sanity first.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

A pledge is not a prediction. It is a declaration of intent, a promise with connotations of sacred or honour based validity. A promise on steroids.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:08 PM

A "pledge" is merely a prediction. Predictions are by definition speculative.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:43 PM

So what on earth were you talking about, keith,

The professor does not, and never has had, the vaguest idea what he was, or is, rabbiting on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:39 PM

So what on earth were you talking about, keith, when you said, in reference to precisely that point, that "Yes, it is disputed"?

Whatever "pledge" might have been given by the government in advance of the referendum, that can have no legal force. Laws don't work like that.

Even if the government had said "parliament will have no say in this" - which it did nor - that would legally have no effect whatsoever. What determines whether parliament has a say or not - which still has to be determined - is whatever legislation is in force at present, as interpreted by the highest court.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 02:19 PM

It is not a lie that the referendum at the time it was taken was advisory. It is a proven and agreed fact. The government are now trying to make retrospective legislation because they have been caught telling porkies. I really don't know what else this argument is about. Have I got it right?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:48 PM

I love it McG :-) Perfect example of a Mudcat thread...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:46 PM

I think it is now agreed that the referendum (Plural referendums) at the time it was taken was advisory. There is no doubt about that from anyone now.

No. If the "advice" was guaranteed to be acted on, it becomes binding and not advisory.

It is the legitimacy of the promise that is being tested. Not the referendum itself. As per my point many posts ago. The government lied.

No. The government believed, and still believes, it had the right to make that promise, and Parliament did not challenge it.
So not a lie.
It has yet to be decided at law if they were right to do that or not.

So not a lie and not even proven wrong yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:40 PM

A fuller Lewis Carroll explanation

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:29 PM

So, I think it is now agreed that the referendum (Plural referendums) at the time it was taken was advisory. There is no doubt about that from anyone now.

We do not disagree on any facts.
Yes it is a fact that referenda are deemed advisory in the legislation, but this one was offered as binding in that Parliament would have no veto. The legitimacy of that is now being tested.

It is the legitimacy of the promise that is being tested. Not the referendum itself. As per my point many posts ago. The government lied.

That was the last sticking point. It has now been removed. Just what is the argument about?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:21 PM

You appear to be saying that there are people who dispute the existence of the words of the legislation setting up the referendum

Why would I dispute something so easily verifiable?
It is disputed that THIS referendum was advisory because it was pledged that the "advice," i.e. the result, would be accepted whatever it was and without Parliament having a say.

The court case has nothing whatsoever with that,

Of course it has!

it is purely about whether, under currently existing legislation, it has the ability to do that without the approval of Parliament.

That was the pledge given for this referendum, that the advice would be taken and Parliament would have no say about it.
There was no objection to that until the result came in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:11 PM

Yes, it is disputed.

You appear to be saying that there are people who dispute the existence of the words of the legislation setting up the referendum, which specifically state that it is advisory. And you seem to imply that this is a rational view, and that you are willing to entertain it.

No one questions that the government stated that its fixed intention was to accept the outcome of this advisory referendum, and that this remains its intention. The court case has nothing whatsoever with that, it is purely about whether, under currently existing legislation, it has the ability to do that without the approval of Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:04 PM

...so yes it was advisory, but the government undertook to accept the advice and Parliament never demurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:02 PM

We do not disagree on any facts.
Yes it is a fact that referenda are deemed advisory in the legislation, but this one was offered as binding in that Parliament would have no veto. The legitimacy of that is now being tested.

I can not remember the SNP position, but the 3 main parties plus UKIP all offered a binding, in/out referendum in their manifestos.
Parliament did not challenge their exclusion from the decision in the year leading up to the referendum, and even the current challenge is not from Parliamentarians.

No-one was given any reason to suspect that the vote would not be binding and without Parliament being involved.
They were given an undertaking that it would be binding, by the government, in an official document delivered to every home in the UK at public expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 07:59 AM

BTW - I am no constitutional lawyer either but, before I 'dropped out' of higher education I was studying history, economics and British constitution and government. While being far from expert in any of the subjects I have retained an interest and grounding in all.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 06:03 AM

A difference that makes no difference isn't really a difference in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:56 AM

Absolutely no one said or even intimated that they knew that there was any question of a court case. The only thing that people have said they knew is that the referendum was advisory. Which is was. If anyone can provide a link to anywhere where anyone stated that they knew there was a question of a court case I suggest they provide it. Otherwise it is incorrect to say that anyone did such a thing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:46 AM

Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:12 AM

Is anyone disputing that as a fact?

Yes, it is disputed.

Not according to The Professor, The All-Knowing. He says that the government is challenging the legislation.

Not all knowing. Not being a constitutional lawyer I do not even have an opinion on the possible outcome, and am in awe of those who knew for certain even before there was any question of a court case.

I did not say what the government was challenging, I quoted their actual case as put to the hearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:06 AM

and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

Read it again. It is not from an interview it is the government's case as put to the High Court.

Yes, I made a mistake. I misread it as the BBC interviewing the government lawyer and him explaining his case, rather than a BBC report of what was said in court. My error, fully admitted.

Which does not change one iota that the argument was about who had the right to invoke Article 50, and not a claim the referendum is binding.

We could go further: exactly the same issue would arise even if there had not been any thought of a referendum. It would still be necessary to clarify who invokes Article 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:01 AM

Precisely, Kevin. You understand that, I understand that, almost everyone else on here understands that. There's just one person who doesn't 'get it', despite having been told umpteen times by those of us who do understand it.

I've had battles with the Muskets, Jim, Steve, et al, where I stood up for him and told them they were being unfair. I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:53 PM

The government is challenging the court ruling. The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will determine whether the Prime Minister (who is for these purposes "the government" ) has to get the agreement of parliament in order to trigger Brexit.

If the Supreme Court determines that under existing law she does not have that authority then parliament's approval has to be obtained. It would of course in theory be possible to introduce legislation that would change existing law, and give her that authority, but that would require parliamentary approval in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:31 PM

Not according to The Professor, The All-Knowing. He says that the government is challenging the legislation.

Very odd that the government would challenge, via the High Court and Supreme Court, the very legislation that they themselves introduced.

But, of course, it's all in his fevered, OCD imagination....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:09 PM

Clearly it was an advisory referendum - that's what the legislation made crystal clear. The fact that the government had indicated that it intended to act in accordance with the referendum result, whatever that might be, made absolutely no difference to that legal position.

The court case wasn't about that at all. It was about whether the Prime Minister has the legal authority to act in accord with that advisory referendum by virttue of her constitutional role as "Crown in Parliament", or whether that authority lies with Parliament. So far the ruling has been that the Prime Minister does not have that authority. The Supreme Court might decide differently, though it is hard to see how that could be justified.

But the decision as to whether and when to "trigger Brexit" depends on a choice to be the made by politicians, either by the PM or by her fellow MPs. The referendum vote provides a context within which that choice has to be made. It would be perfectly legally possible to reject the advice given by that referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 03:00 PM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

Yes, exactly. No qualifications. No excuses. What the government may or may not have believed and what it conned people who did not appraise themselves of the facts into is of no consequence.

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

Is anyone disputing that as a fact?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 02:15 PM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

The government believed it had the authority to be bound by the result of that referendum, and their belief was never questioned by Parliament.
The electorate were told the result would be binding, and were given no guidance by any political party or campaign group that it was not.

and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

Read it again. It is not from an interview it is the government's case as put to the High Court.

BWM,
but the High Court says (correctly) that parliament is sovereign,

Clever of you again to know they were correct when the appeal has yet to be heard!

The government wish to trigger Art. 50 by Royal Prerogative,

Yes. That is how they intended to make the referendum binding despite the legislation you keep on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 01:11 PM

"Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you."
Why do you refuse to respond to straightforward questions?
I have no problem with argument - I just hate hypocrites and dishonest people is the answer to your question
Any supporter of Trump has "issues" - with common decency and humanity
The man is a hate-mongering fascist.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you. Is it your extremme arrogance, or lack of medication?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM

Mr Carroll you obviously have issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

"Mr Carroll misogynist is insulting. "
Have I called you a misogynist?
I didn't call you an misogynist - I asked why you were supporting Trump and suggested that, if you were you were supporting his misogyny
Take your cowardly lying elsewhere.
You people are all the same - all bluff - no backbone to face the consequences of the monsters you support.
Trump is a racist, misogynist hate monger and that is what those wo support him are condoning
Doesn't get more complicated than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:55 AM

"The validity of the Referendum legislation is disputed."

Correction - should have read "The validity of the Referendum legislation is NOT disputed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:51 AM

Mr Carroll misogynist is insulting. Go and blather elsewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:49 AM

Once again, and As usual, you're wrong, KAoH. The validity of the Referendum legislation is disputed.

What is disputed is the procedure required to enact the result of the Referendum. The government wish to trigger Art. 50 by Royal Prerogative, but the High Court says (correctly) that parliament is sovereign, and trumps RP - therefore a debate and vote is required before Art. 50 can be enacted.

What's the weather like up there on Planet Zog?