No you wouldn't. You'd have a full-blown crisis, a general election, a massive battering to all those MPs who voted for Remain against the wishes of their constituents (66% voted Leave on a constituency basis). It would be fun, I have to admit. But not really a very clever thing for Parliament to do.
We should give Spain Gibraltar back. It's a dump anyway. British and Spanish strategic interests (alliances against various European powers - like France) no longer coincide. The key to the British Empire is now the M25, not the Mediterranean. I will say only one thing on this: It should be up to the people of Gibraltar to decide in a.... referendum.
22% of the people think the referendum result should be ignored. 78% of the people think Parliament should do what it promised to do, i.e. abide by the result - for the good of democracy.
We're not the ignorant plebs the media make us out to be.
Do you think the same about Labour in 2005, which had a promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in its 2005 manifesto? Because you know what? It didn't happen. The treaty was signed by Gordon Brown, who had to sneak in through a back door to avoid the TV cameras. Behaviour like this is one of the reasons Brexit won the referendum.
The government sent everybody a leaflet stating that they would implement whatever we decided. If the government cannot do that, it should fall. If Parliament wants to stop the process of Brexit, it can simply hold a confidence vote in the house forcing a general election if it wins.
Invoking article 50 doesn't overturn any legislation. The (rather tenuous) argument is that as it must inevitably result in Parliament having to repeal the EEC Act, it's the same as actually repealing it. I'm sure the Supreme Court will take a dim view of this reasoning.
Triggering article 50 would not overturn the 1973 EEC Act. Repealing the act would overturn it. Repealing the act is what Parliament will have to do eventually. but of course it could choose not to (leading to a constitutional crisis of course and probably a general election). Article 50 is a Royal Prerogative power, the same as the power to enter into or renounce a treaty. The High Court is simply wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn it I'm sure.
An arse-load of money from the EU? That money is from the UK tax payer. The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. The money that goes to Wales comes from the UK exchequer. The only difference is the UK exchequer cannot decide how it's spent. The corrupt Brussels elite decide. Do you really think regional funding would stop if we left the EU? Don't be so fucking idiotic.
Did you not consider the "massive constitutional change" that was the Lisbon Treaty? Yes, the treaty that we were promised a referendum on in both Tory and Labour manifestos in 2005. Did we get one? No. The government at the time reneged on the promise and signed it into law regardless. What authority did Parliament have to do that, I wonder? Moral authority? I think not.
It seems to me that they're terrified - of the UK being an independent country again. You realise that most countries in the world aren't members of the EU, don't you?
This case was brought to subvert the process of leaving the EU, by a foreign born hedge fund manager of all people. If you're going to talk on the one hand about "injecting democracy" by subverting that very process, I would say you're deeply confused. Moreover, only by leaving the EU and repealing the EEC act will Parliament get back its sovereignty. So what you're saying is that this woman, seeking as she is to subvert the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, is actually trying to inject democracy back into the system by helping to ensure that EU law continues to take precedence over UK law.
I mean really, that is quite some mental contortion.
They have that because they regularly use referendums to decide important questions. The UK does not (though recently it seems to have become a thing). Part of the problem here is the last referendum held on this issue was in the early 1970's and since then 3 treaties have passed into law that nobody had a vote on at all. The British people would probably have rejected the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties, though probably not the Single European Act. Funnily enough, the government elected in 2005 had in its manifesto a promise to hold a referendum on Lisbon (then call the European Constitution). It reneged on that promise and signed the treaty into law in 2007, with the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) going in through a back door to sign it to try and avoid the press.
I think you should be a bit more circumspect really.
If you, like others, wish to treat the referendum as a glorified opinion poll, perhaps you should consider that polling right now shows only 22% of people want Parliament to renege on their moral obligation to enact the will of the people as state in the referendum.
According to the UK "constitution", (with legal precedents), governments use the Royal Prerogative to enter into and renounce treaties. Parliament is there to pass or reject such treaties in law. Invoking article 50 does not change any UK legislation. Repealing the European Communities Act would of course - in the usual way. The government is not proposing to repeal the act in March. It is simple invoking an article of a treaty that is fundamentally notice that it will do so.
Invoking article 50 does not overturn an Act of Parliament. Repealing EEC legislation would be doing that but that won't happen for a couple of years at least. This is why the ruling is fundamentally flawed and (I think) will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Listen to yourself ^. Jesus fucking christ. Yes it's complicated. Yes it's difficult. Yes there will be bumps, short and long-term impacts. Some of them will even be good and healthy (amazing!). None of that is a reason not to do it. The only reason you wouldn't want to is because you're scared of the challenge. I mean you're the kind of person who'd probably make this argument if you were, say, Lithuanian and your government wanted to leave the USSR.
Get a grip on yourself and grow a pair of fucking testicles.
No this court decision didn't address that. The Scottish Parliament has no powers whatsoever in this regard, despite the bullshit coming from Sturgeon and her completely retarded underlings.
Only 22% of those polled think that Parliament should reject the result of the referendum. Unlike many of the metropolitan "elite" and Remoaners in the media, most ordinary people think it would be wrong to renege on what was a clear referendum result.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as you seem to think Parliament is best placed to decide, it voted 544 to 53 to pass the referendum bill upon which the rules were written.
No you wouldn't. You'd have a full-blown crisis, a general election, a massive battering to all those MPs who voted for Remain against the wishes of their constituents (66% voted Leave on a constituency basis). It would be fun, I have to admit. But not really a very clever thing for Parliament to do.
We should give Spain Gibraltar back. It's a dump anyway. British and Spanish strategic interests (alliances against various European powers - like France) no longer coincide. The key to the British Empire is now the M25, not the Mediterranean. I will say only one thing on this: It should be up to the people of Gibraltar to decide in a .... referendum.
OH MY GOD 4%! You must be young. I remember it at 15%.
Are you a lawyer? That's a pretty concise and well written description of the problem.
22% of the people think the referendum result should be ignored. 78% of the people think Parliament should do what it promised to do, i.e. abide by the result - for the good of democracy.
We're not the ignorant plebs the media make us out to be.
The Tory party is fairly united in wanting to get the damned thing over with.
Do you think the same about Labour in 2005, which had a promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in its 2005 manifesto? Because you know what? It didn't happen. The treaty was signed by Gordon Brown, who had to sneak in through a back door to avoid the TV cameras. Behaviour like this is one of the reasons Brexit won the referendum.
This judgement was about invoking Article 50, not repealing the EEC Act. Therefore, its basis in law is questionable at best.
The government sent everybody a leaflet stating that they would implement whatever we decided. If the government cannot do that, it should fall. If Parliament wants to stop the process of Brexit, it can simply hold a confidence vote in the house forcing a general election if it wins.
Invoking article 50 doesn't overturn any legislation. The (rather tenuous) argument is that as it must inevitably result in Parliament having to repeal the EEC Act, it's the same as actually repealing it. I'm sure the Supreme Court will take a dim view of this reasoning.
And the existing law of the land says she can invoke an article of the treaty with the Royal Prerogative. Article 50 does not change UK law.
The EJC has no jurisdiction here. It's going to the Supreme Court in December. 11 judges will sit (pretty much all of them).
Triggering article 50 would not overturn the 1973 EEC Act. Repealing the act would overturn it. Repealing the act is what Parliament will have to do eventually. but of course it could choose not to (leading to a constitutional crisis of course and probably a general election). Article 50 is a Royal Prerogative power, the same as the power to enter into or renounce a treaty. The High Court is simply wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn it I'm sure.
An arse-load of money from the EU? That money is from the UK tax payer. The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. The money that goes to Wales comes from the UK exchequer. The only difference is the UK exchequer cannot decide how it's spent. The corrupt Brussels elite decide. Do you really think regional funding would stop if we left the EU? Don't be so fucking idiotic.
Did you not consider the "massive constitutional change" that was the Lisbon Treaty? Yes, the treaty that we were promised a referendum on in both Tory and Labour manifestos in 2005. Did we get one? No. The government at the time reneged on the promise and signed it into law regardless. What authority did Parliament have to do that, I wonder? Moral authority? I think not.
It seems to me that they're terrified - of the UK being an independent country again. You realise that most countries in the world aren't members of the EU, don't you?
This case was brought to subvert the process of leaving the EU, by a foreign born hedge fund manager of all people. If you're going to talk on the one hand about "injecting democracy" by subverting that very process, I would say you're deeply confused. Moreover, only by leaving the EU and repealing the EEC act will Parliament get back its sovereignty. So what you're saying is that this woman, seeking as she is to subvert the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, is actually trying to inject democracy back into the system by helping to ensure that EU law continues to take precedence over UK law.
I mean really, that is quite some mental contortion.
They have that because they regularly use referendums to decide important questions. The UK does not (though recently it seems to have become a thing). Part of the problem here is the last referendum held on this issue was in the early 1970's and since then 3 treaties have passed into law that nobody had a vote on at all. The British people would probably have rejected the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties, though probably not the Single European Act. Funnily enough, the government elected in 2005 had in its manifesto a promise to hold a referendum on Lisbon (then call the European Constitution). It reneged on that promise and signed the treaty into law in 2007, with the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) going in through a back door to sign it to try and avoid the press.
I think you should be a bit more circumspect really.
If you, like others, wish to treat the referendum as a glorified opinion poll, perhaps you should consider that polling right now shows only 22% of people want Parliament to renege on their moral obligation to enact the will of the people as state in the referendum.
According to the UK "constitution", (with legal precedents), governments use the Royal Prerogative to enter into and renounce treaties. Parliament is there to pass or reject such treaties in law. Invoking article 50 does not change any UK legislation. Repealing the European Communities Act would of course - in the usual way. The government is not proposing to repeal the act in March. It is simple invoking an article of a treaty that is fundamentally notice that it will do so.
Invoking article 50 does not overturn an Act of Parliament. Repealing EEC legislation would be doing that but that won't happen for a couple of years at least. This is why the ruling is fundamentally flawed and (I think) will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Listen to yourself ^. Jesus fucking christ. Yes it's complicated. Yes it's difficult. Yes there will be bumps, short and long-term impacts. Some of them will even be good and healthy (amazing!). None of that is a reason not to do it. The only reason you wouldn't want to is because you're scared of the challenge. I mean you're the kind of person who'd probably make this argument if you were, say, Lithuanian and your government wanted to leave the USSR.
Get a grip on yourself and grow a pair of fucking testicles.
No this court decision didn't address that. The Scottish Parliament has no powers whatsoever in this regard, despite the bullshit coming from Sturgeon and her completely retarded underlings.
Only 22% of those polled think that Parliament should reject the result of the referendum. Unlike many of the metropolitan "elite" and Remoaners in the media, most ordinary people think it would be wrong to renege on what was a clear referendum result.