Mr. Cooke, it's a technicality. There have been numerous democratic hurdles passed (the General Election, the vote in Parliament enabling the referendum to be held, the referendum itself).
This is a tactic to frustrate and deny the referendum result. In legal terms, it appears correct. In the same way celebrities have got off charges of dangerous driving for using mobile telephones by claiming they were using the calculator or dictaphone functions rather than speaking to someone.
All laws are technicalities and are put there to frustrate the ability of the powerful to run roughshod. It's hardly much of an imposition to put a one paragraph Bill through Parliament - and comply with British law, made by a British Parliament and judged by British judges in a British court.
You just watch the attempts to frustrate Brexit if/when that happens.
Mr. Cooke, the powerful riding roughshod over the ordinary people is precisely the intention of this tactic.
Who are "the powerful" who are riding roughshod? Parliament? Our elected Parliament, who can be dismissed by the Government and made to stand for re-election by us ordinary people?
@JGForsyth: Tempers running high in Westminster this morning, there are rumours a Tory MP might resign over criticisms of judges over Article 50 verdict
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
Hadn't David Davis used to be quite keen on that kind of thing ;-)
A good piece. I agree with the concluding two paragraphs but not the argument that got you there, David.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible * as much control over free movement of people as possible * as little direct financial contribution as possible
No hostages to fortune. One paragraph. Job done.
I agree that would be best provided the Government is confident of it passing in both Houses. But I think I'd rather concede to some very limited general principles than provoke a constitutional crisis. Probably.
@JGForsyth: Tempers running high in Westminster this morning, there are rumours a Tory MP might resign over criticisms of judges over Article 50 verdict
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
Hadn't David Davis used to be quite keen on that kind of thing ;-)
I reckon Dominic Grieve
Too sensible.
Yes but these are extraordinary times.
I once saw him give a talk about the virtues of an independent judiciary, he was quite passionate about it.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Of course not. It would sail through the Commons and Mrs May could create 100 peers if necessary.
How does creating 100 peers to ram this through, make this constitutional crisis any better?
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Mr. Cooke, it's a technicality. There have been numerous democratic hurdles passed (the General Election, the vote in Parliament enabling the referendum to be held, the referendum itself).
This is a tactic to frustrate and deny the referendum result. In legal terms, it appears correct. In the same way celebrities have got off charges of dangerous driving for using mobile telephones by claiming they were using the calculator or dictaphone functions rather than speaking to someone.
All laws are technicalities and are put there to frustrate the ability of the powerful to run roughshod. It's hardly much of an imposition to put a one paragraph Bill through Parliament - and comply with British law, made by a British Parliament and judged by British judges in a British court.
I agree. I still fear the consequences but will be very happy to be proved wrong on that.
But whatever the result, the principle as you outline it is absolutely correct. Even if we stand on the losing side we still have to stand on principles.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Of course not. It would sail through the Commons and Mrs May could create 100 peers if necessary.
How does creating 100 peers to ram this through, make this constitutional crisis any better?
Scrap the bloody thing, its a complete waste of money.
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
A general election is not a referendum.
We are a representative democracy, a General Election would trump a referendum.
No, it wouldn't. General elections elect people to decide policies, referendums decide policies directly.
Not unless they are made legally binding they don't.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
A good piece. I agree with the concluding two paragraphs but not the argument that got you there, David.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible * as much control over free movement of people as possible * as little direct financial contribution as possible
The ACT should say as little as possible - a single sentence saying:
The Government is to effect the will of the people in the EU referendum by notifying the EU it is applying Article 50 to trigger leaving the EU.
I was +20 on Kassam as well, but in general I am happy with a few pennies on the two options which are 99% likely to win between them.
After a very good run I seem to have got in a position where I lose about a monkey whatever happens on the second UKIP leadership. I have just got so confused and bored by the whole thing that I have made mistakes in my automated betting program.
A good piece. I agree with the concluding two paragraphs but not the argument that got you there, David.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible * as much control over free movement of people as possible * as little direct financial contribution as possible
A good piece. I agree with the concluding two paragraphs but not the argument that got you there, David.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible * as much control over free movement of people as possible * as little direct financial contribution as possible
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
Have you paid attention to anything the EC/EU has done over the last 30 years?
Yes, accession to the euro and Schengen would probably have required another referendum. That one wouldn't have been close.
how would they have forced us to sign a new treaty to do that?
There are many attacks on our interests that could have been made, and to the Europhilic officials who mostly run our interactions with Brussels, the argument "your people voted for it" would have been decisive.
"Some 34 percent of voters considered that Juppe won the debate, while 24 percent thought Sarkozy was the victor. But amid centrist and conservative sympathisers, Sarkozy edged ahead with 31 percent vs 28 percent for Juppe."
All polls continue to show a 60/40 lead for Juppe in a run off with Sarkozy.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Of course not. It would sail through the Commons and Mrs May could create 100 peers if necessary.
How does creating 100 peers to ram this through, make this constitutional crisis any better?
If the peers attempted to circumvent the democratically expressed will of the people then - as in 1906 - the government would be well within its rights to ask the monarch.
Hoops, however inconvenient, must be jumped through.
"There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people"
That should be the case.
But certain politicians don't agree.
And they will be subject to the will of the British people. Let's play through your scenario and assume for a moment that Parliament refuses to allow Article 50 to be triggered. What happens then? The government resigns, an election is called and the voters decide. And they will decide to return MPs who specifically state they will vote to trigger Article 50. There is no way that we can stay in the EU without voter approval. It just cannot happen. Unless there is a coup.
Exactly so. Worrying over parliamentary niceties misses the point. MPs can't ignore public opinion for long whichever way it goes.
"Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast."
We purchased our house four years ago. Before that, we were renting and spending a trifle under £1,000 a month on our house. We were fortunate: we'd been saving for a long time (in fact, even before we got together) and could put down a big deposit.
I fail to see how many people could save for a deposit whilst paying rent anywhere near that level (and yes, our house was larger than we needed). But even a smaller house is still expensive to rent.
There is no campaign against buy to let investing its just been unfairly subsidised in the past. Kenneth Clarke commented when asked about this that he doesn't believe any loan should receive a tax benefit - the only reason countries allow it is because other countries do it. So there is zero need to provide tax concessions on loans within a single country.
However the real things that will kill the BTL market are:-
1) a lack of house building 2) Basel 3 which is going to push BTL mortgage lending nearer business loan rates rather than personal loan rates (especially for the most vocal complainers who all seem to have interest only loans). 3) the idea that all BTLers including estate agents have that when a house is sold it disappears in a puff of smoke. No it either goes to another landlord (and is let out again) or it is bought by a family and the demand for rental property decreases appropriately.
So personally the new rules don't go far enough - hopefully when S24 is fully implemented the rest of the benefit can disappears and the bias towards BTLers in the housing market destroyed.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
In fact, there's an opposing argument: we were a significant brake on the ambition of the high-church EU, and that our leave vote has made the chances of faster integration for the remainder more likely. If that's the case, I'm not sure the high church understand how many people within the EU are feeling.
How exactly were we a brake? Did we prevent them from starting a single currency? A passport-free continent wide borderless region?
No, but we did not join the Euro or Schengen; other smaller EU countries also take advantage of similar concessions. Can you see Denmark being allowed to remain outside the Euro if everyone else is in (or obliged to join once the criteria are met)?
Also, we were a big player in the EU who had reservations, and noisily made our views heard. Our voice has now disappeared, and the other voices are squeaks.
Regarding that Suffolk polling comment from 2012, the thing I find most funny is that the only published Suffolk poll I could find on Virginia was Obama +2.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
In fact, there's an opposing argument: we were a significant brake on the ambition of the high-church EU, and that our leave vote has made the chances of faster integration for the remainder more likely. If that's the case, I'm not sure the high church understand how many people within the EU are feeling.
How exactly were we a brake? Did we prevent them from starting a single currency? A passport-free continent wide borderless region?
No, but we did not join the Euro or Schengen; other smaller EU countries also take advantage of similar concessions. Can you see Denmark being allowed to remain outside the Euro if everyone else is in (or obliged to join once the criteria are met)?
Also, we were a big player in the EU who had reservations, and noisily made our views heard. Our voice has now disappeared, and the other voices are squeaks.
Denmark could not be forced to join the Euro without treaty change.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Of course not. It would sail through the Commons and Mrs May could create 100 peers if necessary.
How does creating 100 peers to ram this through, make this constitutional crisis any better?
If the peers attempted to circumvent the democratically expressed will of the people then - as in 1906 - the government would be well within its rights to ask the monarch.
Hoops, however inconvenient, must be jumped through.
There would be a significant time delay doing that. And I believe it was the time delay that the court case was trying to create not a different result...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
How does it lead to a GE? That needs the consent of either both houses or a supermajority of the Commons. And for May to break her promise.
Material change in the circumstances. Repeal the FTPA or declare that the house has no confidence.
Repeal requires the consent of the Lords. No confidence requires other parties to play ball.
Which they will have to, but no it doesn't. No confidence requires a simple majority.
We're seeing the emergence of the Augustinian Leavers: God give me Parliamentary democracy, but not yet.
"We want decisions to be made by Parliament!!" (Ah, maybe not...) "We want British judges in British courts to make judgements on British laws!" (Ah, maybe not...)
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I agonised over the Leave/Remain choice for months and weighed up all the arguments. I knew the "£350 million" and "Turkish accession" arguments were bollocks, but the Leavers could have done me the courtesy of explaining that their arguments on sovereignty were also not meant.
Do you or do you not accept the democratic decision of the British people as expressed in the referendum result?
If you do, sovereignty is moot as the people as a whole cannot be subservient to Parliament. Sovereignty has to reside with the people; it is just normally delegated to representatives in Parliament.
For many people it was a close decision which way to vote. But the worst of all worlds - far worse than to continue to deny the people a referendum - is to hold the referendum and then ignore it.
So the Government should bloody get on with it and put the Bill down. You've got loads of people here saying "Just put a one paragraph Bill through, do it today, and job bloody done" Without needing to shred the law. May tells her Party it's going to be a matter leading to dissolution and withdrawal of the whip if they refuse to vote Aye. And dares Labour to vote it down. And then dares the Lords to vote it down.
If it somehow gets voted down, getting a new election isn't difficult, despite the FTPA, and an election with a majority based explicitly around Brexit WILL get such a Bill through, reinforce her authority on the subject, AND ensure that the Lords comply (the Crossbenchers and Tories should be relied upon at the very least - directly after an election based on the subject!)
Do it. But do it right.
It's only the media whipping up Brexiteer panic ('cos outrage sells (for most; the Express are probably genuinely that dim) and the Brexiteers obediently following along that's making it even remotely controversial at all.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
A general election is not a referendum.
We are a representative democracy, a General Election would trump a referendum.
No, it wouldn't. General elections elect people to decide policies, referendums decide policies directly.
Not unless they are made legally binding they don't.
I doubt that the people as a whole would accept that their decision at a referendum isn't binding.
There are many attacks on our interests that could have been made, and to the Europhilic officials who mostly run our interactions with Brussels, the argument "your people voted for it" would have been decisive.
It would require treaty change. Which we'd have to vote for.
Regarding that Suffolk polling comment from 2012, the thing I find most funny is that the only published Suffolk poll I could find on Virginia was Obama +2.
Suffolk really got burnt in 2012. They went out on a limb and shouted it was all over for Obama .... Ooooppps ....
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Of course not. It would sail through the Commons and Mrs May could create 100 peers if necessary.
How does creating 100 peers to ram this through, make this constitutional crisis any better?
If the peers attempted to circumvent the democratically expressed will of the people then - as in 1906 - the government would be well within its rights to ask the monarch.
Hoops, however inconvenient, must be jumped through.
There would be a significant time delay doing that. And I believe it was the time delay that the court case was trying to create not a different result...
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Mr. Cooke, the powerful riding roughshod over the ordinary people is precisely the intention of this tactic.
That's a little overblown. For one, the ordinary people gave a view, but the formal triggering of the decision always remained with the powerful, we are now just seeing an argument over which powerful people, executive or legislative, do so. For two, whatever the intention, it could not permanently ride roughshod over the ordinary people.
Whinging about the intention of those who want to prevent Brexit ignores, I feel, that firstly as frustrating as it always is there is nothing wrong with people attempting to prevent a decision they do not like as long as they do so within the law (if Brexit were defeated that way, it would be a damning indictment of Brexit politicians and the meekness of the public) and secondly the answer is not to imply people should not be able to challenge the government's own interpretation of its powers (for that is what is implied when people get angry that judges have ruled against the government against the will of the people - that they have no right to do that, when the government itself accepted otherwise, that it was a matter for the court - rather than querying the legal interpretation of the judges as several have and which is perfectly reasonable, and those queries may be correct).
Intention is not everything. Just as the defence of free speech includes a concomitant acceptance that some worthless and offensive commentary will find itself as protected as much worthier speech, so too the defence of legal processes and who holds what powers will involve apparent 'technicalities' (in fact fundamental principles about whether power for certain actions was expressly permitted or not) frustrating the passage of popularly endorsed policies from time to time. Since the passage will only be undone by popular mandate (which seems improbable), since there are multiple paths to Brexit should the Commons or the Lords attempt to block it, the idea the ordinary people are being ridden over roughshod is, I regret to say, faintly ridiculous to me.
Some would indeed like to do so. That doesn't change that our representatives can still implement the referendum result, and if they dare not to, we can replace them with ones who will - we still have that power, it is just not direct, but then we never had direct power, something far too many seem to be forgetting or ignoring. We haven't had power taken away by this intended tactic. We never had it, this tactic just throws that into sharper focus as unlikely but possible scenarios are raised.
@JGForsyth: Tempers running high in Westminster this morning, there are rumours a Tory MP might resign over criticisms of judges over Article 50 verdict
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
Hadn't David Davis used to be quite keen on that kind of thing ;-)
I reckon Dominic Grieve
Too sensible.
Yes but these are extraordinary times.
No they're not.
If MPs resigned every time the Daily Mail got hysterical we'd have bye-elections every week.
And Grieve is not a drama-queen - how would forcing a bye-election help defend the independence of the judiciary?
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
Do you or do you not accept the democratic decision of the British people as expressed in the referendum result?
If you do, sovereignty is moot as the people as a whole cannot be subservient to Parliament. Sovereignty has to reside with the people; it is just normally delegated to representatives in Parliament.
For many people it was a close decision which way to vote. But the worst of all worlds - far worse than to continue to deny the people a referendum - is to hold the referendum and then ignore it.
People voted on whether to stay in the EU. If they'd been asked "and while you're at it, replace Parliamentary democracy by direct democracy with referendums binding on Parliament", the result might have been different. Perhaps more, perhaps less, but different.
I've lived in Switzerland, which has direct democracy (with some limitations). It works well there, and I'm not necessarily against it. But it shouldn't be suddenly introduced to facilitate a particular cause.
"You mean judges drive their own cars?" shocker...
D'oh! Its not real....
On a morning when a national newspaper can carry a front page editorial that begins:
"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches."
and ends:
"Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight."
it's hard to tell what's real and what's a spoof.
Didn't have you down as an Express reader.......
I have very varied reading tastes. Their front page was sufficiently, erm, eye-catching that I investigated further.
It's illustrative of the mindset of a particular type of Leaver. For them, there is literally nothing more important than leaving the EU. Collateral destruction to the rule of law, the accountability of the executive and Parliamentary democracy is trivial by comparison.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
The government said it intended to trigger Article 50 the day after a Leave vote. It didn't.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
The fact that something so important is open to interpretation is a weapons grade screw up.
It's illustrative of the mindset of a particular type of Leaver. For them, there is literally nothing more important than leaving the EU. Collateral destruction to the rule of law, the accountability of the executive and Parliamentary democracy is trivial by comparison.
It's a mania.
It's becoming clear that for some of them the fight against the EU was just a proxy for their fundamental gripe with constitutional government full stop.
''I've lived in Switzerland, which has direct democracy (with some limitations). It works well there, and I'm not necessarily against it. But it shouldn't be suddenly introduced to facilitate a particular cause. ''
Nick, don't tell us, tell the government
''this is your decision, the government will implement what you decide''
All leavers have done is believe that in good faith.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
The government said it intended to trigger Article 50 the day after a Leave vote. It didn't.
Cameron said that at one point. The official materials said something like "we will implement the results". What matters is what was said in parliament during the vote on the Act.
"You mean judges drive their own cars?" shocker...
D'oh! Its not real....
On a morning when a national newspaper can carry a front page editorial that begins:
"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches."
and ends:
"Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight."
it's hard to tell what's real and what's a spoof.
Didn't have you down as an Express reader.......
I have very varied reading tastes. Their front page was sufficiently, erm, eye-catching that I investigated further.
It's illustrative of the mindset of a particular type of Leaver. For them, there is literally nothing more important than leaving the EU. Collateral destruction to the rule of law, the accountability of the executive and Parliamentary democracy is trivial by comparison.
It's a mania.
You'll ruin the good name of lawyers if you keep this up.
"Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast."
That was so obvious Alistair.
I think getting rid of the wear and tear allowance was a good policy though...it creates more motivation for landlords to invest rather than just have a nice tax free deductible 10%.
The housing market in the UK is an example of a properly dysfunctional market
We're seeing the emergence of the Augustinian Leavers: God give me Parliamentary democracy, but not yet.
"We want decisions to be made by Parliament!!" (Ah, maybe not...) "We want British judges in British courts to make judgements on British laws!" (Ah, maybe not...)
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I agonised over the Leave/Remain choice for months and weighed up all the arguments. I knew the "£350 million" and "Turkish accession" arguments were bollocks, but the Leavers could have done me the courtesy of explaining that their arguments on sovereignty were also not meant.
Do you or do you not accept the democratic decision of the British people as expressed in the referendum result?
If you do, sovereignty is moot as the people as a whole cannot be subservient to Parliament. Sovereignty has to reside with the people; it is just normally delegated to representatives in Parliament.
For many people it was a close decision which way to vote. But the worst of all worlds - far worse than to continue to deny the people a referendum - is to hold the referendum and then ignore it.
So the Government should bloody get on with it and put the Bill down. You've got loads of people here saying "Just put a one paragraph Bill through, do it today, and job bloody done" Without needing to shred the law. May tells her Party it's going to be a matter leading to dissolution and withdrawal of the whip if they refuse to vote Aye. And dares Labour to vote it down. And then dares the Lords to vote it down.
If it somehow gets voted down, getting a new election isn't difficult, despite the FTPA, and an election with a majority based explicitly around Brexit WILL get such a Bill through, reinforce her authority on the subject, AND ensure that the Lords comply (the Crossbenchers and Tories should be relied upon at the very least - directly after an election based on the subject!)
Do it. But do it right.
It's only the media whipping up Brexiteer panic ('cos outrage sells (for most; the Express are probably genuinely that dim) and the Brexiteers obediently following along that's making it even remotely controversial at all.
It's interesting that in among all those words you didn't actually answer the question...
As I've been arguing all morning, holding a further vote in Parliament is intrinsically anti-democratic as doing so accepts that Parliament has the right to veto the people's decision. At best, this is storing up trouble for the future.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
The fact that something so important is open to interpretation is a weapons grade screw up.
Cameron really wasn't good at the details, was he!
Mr. kle4, we agree (have in the past, at any rate) that this is an attempt to frustrate and deny the referendum result.
The Lords will likely vote against. There may then be Parliamentary ping-pong or a new election. And if the Lords vote against again, who knows how long this will take. Any opportunity to deny the result or to implement departure in name only will be seized upon by the EU-philes such as Clegg, Blair et al.
I think you're being a little complacent. We're still likely to leave, but it's far from certain and there are many who want to shackle us to the EU as tightly as possible.
There are many attacks on our interests that could have been made, and to the Europhilic officials who mostly run our interactions with Brussels, the argument "your people voted for it" would have been decisive.
It would require treaty change. Which we'd have to vote for.
Which wasn't going to happen.
At some point we would have wanted something, for which there would have been a quid pro quo. (pun intended.)
''I've lived in Switzerland, which has direct democracy (with some limitations). It works well there, and I'm not necessarily against it. But it shouldn't be suddenly introduced to facilitate a particular cause. ''
Nick, don't tell us, tell the government
''this is your decision, the government will implement what you decide''
All leavers have done is believe that in good faith.
Then Leavers should complain to the Government. It's been more than four months since the referendum and the Government has still not bothered to put a short Bill through Parliament enabling it to do as it has promised.
Yes, there was a leadership change, but May has had nearly four months herself to just get on with it. Don't scream for judges to be seen as Public Enemies for following the law, scream at May to stop dithering and just bloody do it.
I swear it's the uncertainty around it all that's the issue; if she just damn well got on with it, we'd all be happier.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
The fact that something so important is open to interpretation is a weapons grade screw up.
Well it isn't. The government didn't argue the point in court, accepting that the referendum was not legally binding. See paragraph 105 (the keen reader can also read 106-108, which explains why the High Court firmly agreed with the government's concession):
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
It's been a long time since I looked at constitutional law, but my understanding is that if there is any doubt in what Parliament intended, then courts should look at the parliamentary record (i.e. Hansard) to determine intent and make its judgement accordingly.
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
The government said it intended to trigger Article 50 the day after a Leave vote. It didn't.
Cameron said that at one point. The official materials said something like "we will implement the results". What matters is what was said in parliament during the vote on the Act.
We're seeing the emergence of the Augustinian Leavers: God give me Parliamentary democracy, but not yet.
"We want decisions to be made by Parliament!!" (Ah, maybe not...) "We want British judges in British courts to make judgements on British laws!" (Ah, maybe not...)
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I agonised over the Leave/Remain choice for months and weighed up all the arguments. I knew the "£350 million" and "Turkish accession" arguments were bollocks, but the Leavers could have done me the courtesy of explaining that their arguments on sovereignty were also not meant.
Do you or do you not accept the democratic decision of the British people as expressed in the referendum result?
If you do, sovereignty is moot as the people as a whole cannot be subservient to Parliament. Sovereignty has to reside with the people; it is just normally delegated to representatives in Parliament.
For many people it was a close decision which way to vote. But the worst of all worlds - far worse than to continue to deny the people a referendum - is to hold the referendum and then ignore it.
So the Government should bloody get on with it and put the Bill down. You've got loads of people here saying "Just put a one paragraph Bill through, do it today, and job bloody done" Without needing to shred the law. May tells her Party it's going to be a matter leading to dissolution and withdrawal of the whip if they refuse to vote Aye. And dares Labour to vote it down. And then dares the Lords to vote it down.
If it somehow gets voted down, getting a new election isn't difficult, despite the FTPA, and an election with a majority based explicitly around Brexit WILL get such a Bill through, reinforce her authority on the subject, AND ensure that the Lords comply (the Crossbenchers and Tories should be relied upon at the very least - directly after an election based on the subject!)
Do it. But do it right.
It's only the media whipping up Brexiteer panic ('cos outrage sells (for most; the Express are probably genuinely that dim) and the Brexiteers obediently following along that's making it even remotely controversial at all.
It's interesting that in among all those words you didn't actually answer the question...
As I've been arguing all morning, holding a further vote in Parliament is intrinsically anti-democratic as doing so accepts that Parliament has the right to veto the people's decision. At best, this is storing up trouble for the future.
I'm terribly sorry; I thought it was rather obvious in "Do it. But do it right."
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
"You mean judges drive their own cars?" shocker...
D'oh! Its not real....
On a morning when a national newspaper can carry a front page editorial that begins:
"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches."
and ends:
"Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight."
it's hard to tell what's real and what's a spoof.
Didn't have you down as an Express reader.......
Despite what some people have said, we are a broad church on PB, we even have somebody who has admitted to being one of the very few people in the UK to actively tune into ITV2 !!!!
Comments
You just watch the attempts to frustrate Brexit if/when that happens.
Parliament?
Our elected Parliament, who can be dismissed by the Government and made to stand for re-election by us ordinary people?
Clinton 283 .. Trump 192 .. Toss-Up 63
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-race
I once saw him give a talk about the virtues of an independent judiciary, he was quite passionate about it.
How does creating 100 peers to ram this through, make this constitutional crisis any better?
Mr. 1000, good to see you back on.
But whatever the result, the principle as you outline it is absolutely correct. Even if we stand on the losing side we still have to stand on principles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37869643
HS2 and West Coast mainline in hands of same operator.
The Government is to effect the will of the people in the EU referendum by notifying the EU it is applying Article 50 to trigger leaving the EU.
"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches."
and ends:
"Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight."
it's hard to tell what's real and what's a spoof.
Best wishes for a full and fast recovery.
"Some 34 percent of voters considered that Juppe won the debate, while 24 percent thought Sarkozy was the victor. But amid centrist and conservative sympathisers, Sarkozy edged ahead with 31 percent vs 28 percent for Juppe."
All polls continue to show a 60/40 lead for Juppe in a run off with Sarkozy.
Surely that whiff of brimstone requires marking with a 666 notification :-)
Hoops, however inconvenient, must be jumped through.
However the real things that will kill the BTL market are:-
1) a lack of house building
2) Basel 3 which is going to push BTL mortgage lending nearer business loan rates rather than personal loan rates (especially for the most vocal complainers who all seem to have interest only loans).
3) the idea that all BTLers including estate agents have that when a house is sold it disappears in a puff of smoke. No it either goes to another landlord (and is let out again) or it is bought by a family and the demand for rental property decreases appropriately.
So personally the new rules don't go far enough - hopefully when S24 is fully implemented the rest of the benefit can disappears and the bias towards BTLers in the housing market destroyed.
Also, we were a big player in the EU who had reservations, and noisily made our views heard. Our voice has now disappeared, and the other voices are squeaks.
Clinton 49 .. Trump 40
http://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_nov_2016_politics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37868441
You've got loads of people here saying "Just put a one paragraph Bill through, do it today, and job bloody done"
Without needing to shred the law.
May tells her Party it's going to be a matter leading to dissolution and withdrawal of the whip if they refuse to vote Aye. And dares Labour to vote it down.
And then dares the Lords to vote it down.
If it somehow gets voted down, getting a new election isn't difficult, despite the FTPA, and an election with a majority based explicitly around Brexit WILL get such a Bill through, reinforce her authority on the subject, AND ensure that the Lords comply (the Crossbenchers and Tories should be relied upon at the very least - directly after an election based on the subject!)
Do it. But do it right.
It's only the media whipping up Brexiteer panic ('cos outrage sells (for most; the Express are probably genuinely that dim) and the Brexiteers obediently following along that's making it even remotely controversial at all.
ARSE ....
Which wasn't going to happen.
And now you have shouted it is all over for Trump. Its brave, minister.
Does it include £350m for the NHS or not?
Me: Do you want to stop Brexit?
Lib Dem spokesman: We are not going to give a running commentary.
In fact, I've called for that in the past on here.
Whinging about the intention of those who want to prevent Brexit ignores, I feel, that firstly as frustrating as it always is there is nothing wrong with people attempting to prevent a decision they do not like as long as they do so within the law (if Brexit were defeated that way, it would be a damning indictment of Brexit politicians and the meekness of the public) and secondly the answer is not to imply people should not be able to challenge the government's own interpretation of its powers (for that is what is implied when people get angry that judges have ruled against the government against the will of the people - that they have no right to do that, when the government itself accepted otherwise, that it was a matter for the court - rather than querying the legal interpretation of the judges as several have and which is perfectly reasonable, and those queries may be correct).
Intention is not everything. Just as the defence of free speech includes a concomitant acceptance that some worthless and offensive commentary will find itself as protected as much worthier speech, so too the defence of legal processes and who holds what powers will involve apparent 'technicalities' (in fact fundamental principles about whether power for certain actions was expressly permitted or not) frustrating the passage of popularly endorsed policies from time to time. Since the passage will only be undone by popular mandate (which seems improbable), since there are multiple paths to Brexit should the Commons or the Lords attempt to block it, the idea the ordinary people are being ridden over roughshod is, I regret to say, faintly ridiculous to me.
Some would indeed like to do so. That doesn't change that our representatives can still implement the referendum result, and if they dare not to, we can replace them with ones who will - we still have that power, it is just not direct, but then we never had direct power, something far too many seem to be forgetting or ignoring. We haven't had power taken away by this intended tactic. We never had it, this tactic just throws that into sharper focus as unlikely but possible scenarios are raised.
If MPs resigned every time the Daily Mail got hysterical we'd have bye-elections every week.
And Grieve is not a drama-queen - how would forcing a bye-election help defend the independence of the judiciary?
I haven't dug through the details, but my understanding was the Referendum Act doesn't say that the referendum is advisory - it merely doesn't say that it is binding.
The judges have interpreted an absence of a statement that it is binding as meaning that it is not binding.
However if the Government said during the Parliamentary debate as well as in the various public communications (and I don't know if they did) that they intended to implement the result of the referendum, then surely you can construe that Parliament *intended* the referendum to be binding, even if the actual legislation is silent on the matter.
Well, its a view.
I've lived in Switzerland, which has direct democracy (with some limitations). It works well there, and I'm not necessarily against it. But it shouldn't be suddenly introduced to facilitate a particular cause.
The government has itself to blame, because it drafted the referendum bill so its sanctity was open to challenge.
Thing is, who drafted it? could a poison pill have been left in there deliberately, just in case?
Was it Grieve?
Didn't have you down as an Express reader.......
https://twitter.com/bbcsoutheast/status/794488581511385089
It's illustrative of the mindset of a particular type of Leaver. For them, there is literally nothing more important than leaving the EU. Collateral destruction to the rule of law, the accountability of the executive and Parliamentary democracy is trivial by comparison.
It's a mania.
The "sanctity of the referendum bill" (sic) is not open to challenge.
The untramelled power of the executive to give away the rights of citizens was open to challenge. Which is a good thing in a democracy.
Disappointing, but not surprising, how many Brexiteers want the rule of law abandoned.
https://twitter.com/simon_nixon/status/794430810707390464
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/794488594136268800
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democratic-insiders-hillarys-ground-game-will-sink-trump-230718
Nick, don't tell us, tell the government
''this is your decision, the government will implement what you decide''
All leavers have done is believe that in good faith.
I think getting rid of the wear and tear allowance was a good policy though...it creates more motivation for landlords to invest rather than just have a nice tax free deductible 10%.
The housing market in the UK is an example of a properly dysfunctional market
If that chart was done by "most important issue" only, the EU and immigrants would come top by a long way.
The NHS is a poor fourth, after the economy.
As I've been arguing all morning, holding a further vote in Parliament is intrinsically anti-democratic as doing so accepts that Parliament has the right to veto the people's decision. At best, this is storing up trouble for the future.
The Lords will likely vote against. There may then be Parliamentary ping-pong or a new election. And if the Lords vote against again, who knows how long this will take. Any opportunity to deny the result or to implement departure in name only will be seized upon by the EU-philes such as Clegg, Blair et al.
I think you're being a little complacent. We're still likely to leave, but it's far from certain and there are many who want to shackle us to the EU as tightly as possible.
Should I put you down as a 'Denial' on Brexit or have you moved on to 'Anger'?
It's been more than four months since the referendum and the Government has still not bothered to put a short Bill through Parliament enabling it to do as it has promised.
Yes, there was a leadership change, but May has had nearly four months herself to just get on with it. Don't scream for judges to be seen as Public Enemies for following the law, scream at May to stop dithering and just bloody do it.
I swear it's the uncertainty around it all that's the issue; if she just damn well got on with it, we'd all be happier.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37868441
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
I noted earlier that this would probably need to be repeated throughout the thread. I expect it will need to be repeated later as well.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.