Mol
<3% in both sides. We even had the Mayor of London getting muddled up on Marr yesterday although he did manage the tag line “a jobs first Brexshit”
The supreme court aren't EU law makers.
LordKerr wrote it but according to you he doesn't understand it.
Can you link to the supreme court judgement that states it is irreversible?
And the decision the supreme court came up with wasn't about saying A50 was irreversible, was that just more about the governments right to act without the approval of parliament in matters of such consequence?
Where in their judgement do they say that?
Here it is here.
Not to add to the fact that parliament will get a vote on this once negotiations are finished, is that just a ceremonial vote, will every MP be compelled to vote through the A50 deal? I suspect not.
IANAL.. .but my understanding is that:
Law makers write law.
Courts interpret law.
It does not matter that the person who wrote might have meant something different. It is the interpretation that forms the law.
I think the reason is that the courts take the view that the public do not know the mind of the person who wrote the law, they can only read it and make an interpretation, so that's how the courts must act. The person who wrote the law might also change their mind and say "that's not what i meant" but obviously that can't mean the law changes.
So Lord Kerr COULD be wrong, even though he wrote the law. But he might not be. I don't know.
<3% in both sides.
So you acknowledge the referendum was a stupid idea? Why so keen to drop all resistance?
I can understand the economic uncertainty argument, but your posts on here sound like you're actually backing the idea, rather than being forced to implement it to limit the damage.
Mefty, I don't know what reasons you have for repeating the lie that the supreme court ruled tha A50 was irreversible, but lie it is.
Not a fan of referendums in general. But that’s bye the bye. We had one. The gov committed to honour the result. That is what is happening. Simple as...
Brexshit will be -ve but manageable. My concern now is the uncertainty over what form of access we will have. I would like that to be ended ASAP hence my criticism of the EU’s deliberate tactic to ensure that uncertainty stays as high as possible. They want to hurt us, I would prefer minimising the losses on both sides. Time is running out for that
But from a negotiating perspective - yes, I would like them to look Barnier squarely in the eye and say “we are prepared to go hard.” Only then will they be sensible and start negotiating
(Actually that’s not true because as always negotiations are happening behind the scenes obviously, but the public are not privy to that)
Until this government collapses, which it will. One government isn't beholden to anothers promises, as has been mentioned.The gov committed to honour the result. That is what is happening. Simple as...
Time is running out for that.
This is also a nonsense too, given that A50 is reversible, if the will is there, which clearly it is on the EU side.
Then the A50 process can be cancelled at anytime.
If the British public, or even parliament then decides in the future to retrigger A50, it can.
Talk of deadlines are just a game of brinkmanship, they don't really mean much if you think about for 2 mninutes.
Rushing into this pretending there are no options is what is lunacy.
Labour are also committed to respecting the result. And they are led by a man of conviction
Are you expecting a miracle from the Lib Dem’s ???
I'd put money on corbyn doing a uturn when he thinks the time is right, he's a man that likes to play games imo.
we are prepared to go hard
About what? 80% of our trade with the EU is services, and a huge chunk of that is banking and insurance, it's no secret that France and Germany are campaigning (within the EU) to make sure that its as hard as it can be for the UK to maintain that primacy and why shouldn't they? We don't have a good enough hand to "play hard"
Our trade in goods is teeny by comparison, and in deficit to the other 27, who will happily continue to trade amongst themselves within the EU.
The gov committed to honour the result. That is what is happening. Simple as...
They could un-commit. If public opinion changes, the first party to do that will have an advantage. Hence the campaigning - its targetting public opinion.
My concern now is the uncertainty over what form of access we will have. I would like that to be ended ASAP hence my criticism of the EU’s deliberate tactic to ensure that uncertainty stays as high as possible.
What should the EU be doing? Giving concessions all over the place? They can't let the UK dictate, can they?
LordKerr wrote it but according to you he doesn't understand it.
Mefty, I don't know what reasons you have for repeating the lie that the supreme court ruled tha A50 was irreversible, but lie it is.
Neither of which I said, however the basic argument that the Gina Miller case made was that by triggering Article 50 the Government was taking away rights given by virtue of an Act of Parliament without giving Parliament a say. That is a gross oversimplification of a complex case, but a fundamental building block of the argument was that Article 50 was irreversible - see para 36 of the majority judgement:
The applicants’ case in that connection is that when Notice is given, the United Kingdom will have embarked on an irreversible course that will lead to much of EU law ceasing to have effect in the United Kingdom, whether or not Parliament repeals the 1972 Act. As Lord Pannick QC put it for Mrs Miller, when ministers
give Notice they will be “pulling … the trigger which causes the bullet to be fired,with the consequence that the bullet will hit the target and the Treaties will cease to apply”. In particular, he said, some of the legal rights which the applicants enjoy under EU law will come to an end. This, he submitted, means that the giving of Notice would pre-empt the decision of Parliament on the Great Repeal Bill. It would be tantamount to altering the law by ministerial action, or executive decision,without prior legislation, and that would not be in accordance with our law
This was then addressed in the majority decision among many other arguments, see para 104
We start by addressing the fact that the EU Treaties contained no provision entitling a member state to withdraw at the time of the 1972 Act, and that such a provision, article 50, was introduced by the TFEU in 2008. [u]Although its invocation will have the inevitable consequence which Lord Pannick described (as mentioned in para 36 above)[/u], article 50 operates only on the international plane, and is not therefore brought into UK law through section 2 of the 1972 Act, as explained in para 79 above.
So does this mean that the Supreme Court has decided that Article 50 is irreversible, no it doesn't, but it does strongly suggest it is their view, which is what I said. Does this mean Lord Kerr doesn't know what he is talking about, of course not, it simply means that what he drafted does not achieve what he intended in the view of the Supreme Court and their view is more important when it comes to matters of interpretation. This happens, if it didn't governments would never lose cases on interpretation of the law because what they intended would be decisive.
So can I ask the leavers on here what is the solution to NI?
Hard border breaches the GFA. soft or no border Breaches EU law.
What is the solution please? Anything that is actually practical? No unspecified IT solution that is unknown anywhere in the world please. specifics.
seosamh77 - Member
a50 is reversible.
mefty - Member
Not in the view of the Supreme Court,
mefty - Member
So does this mean that the Supreme Court has decided that Article 50 is irreversible, no it doesn't.
Glad we cleared that up.
I genuinely thought that THM and Jambalaya were one and the same person - is that not the case?
Good god man, no! Jamba is your regular red white and blue cliff edge no deal brexiteer (who has been bullied off this very thread by some very mean remoaners). Thm is a [i]reluctant[/i] brexiteer who is all grown up and senisible and a true democrat (as long as it only is once and we can ignore the democratic decision to join the common market in the first place but now have voted for leaving the EU so[i] that[/i] vote that doesn't count) Triumph of the Will (of the people!) alt-right libertarian white knight who has bravely stood up for his alt-right brethren bullied off this thread so cruelly by nasty, nasty remoaners (did I mention the dastardly remoaners bullying his pal?) and Jamby was so, so grateful that he [i]gifted[/i] thm a sub. So despite them being paid from the same bank account they are definitely different people oh yes.
But absolutely no way are they one and the same. And neither of them are chewky either. Just to be clear. Or ninfan (obviously).
Another misquote, that isn't the complete sentence, but hey just asserting is such a powerful argument.
😆
I think the reason is that the courts take the view that the public do not know the mind of the person who wrote the law, they can only read it and make an interpretation, so that's how the courts must act. The person who wrote the law might also change their mind and say "that's not what i meant" but obviously that can't mean the law changes.
That's not quite right - reference will and can be made to extrinsic sources to interpret legislation (Hansard for instance).
Is not the solution to the 'divorce bill' simply to ask a third party arbiter to determine the amount due - we're only being asked to honour commitments at this stage - and agree to be bound by that arbitration an then move onto the FTA.
Hello metalH - that’s very imaginative. Well done.
That's not quite right - reference will and can be made to extrinsic sources to interpret legislation (Hansard for instance).
That used to be limited to cases of ambiguity, don't know whether it has moved on. I seem to recall the decision of the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart was the case where the principle was first developed.
Dunno why you are still going on about the supreme court. If the UK government decided it wanted to stop A50, and the EU decided no you're going ahead with it(highly unlikely).
That case wouldn't be settled in the UK supreme court, it would be settled in the European courts, so the supreme courts opinion is largely irrelevant to whether the UK can or can't stop A50.
I'm aswell putting up a ruling from the supreme court of Zamunda saying A50 can be revoked as a counter for all it's worth.
My own (engineer’s) assessment of the Supreme Court’s view was well if the government claim it is irreversible (which they did) then the government need to have a vote because otherwise their position is not consistent. It does not require the SC to have an opinion on the reversible nature of A50.
That case wouldn't be settled in the UK supreme court, it would be settled in the European courts, so the supreme courts opinion is largely irrelevant to whether the UK can or can't stop A50.
Forget that - because they are the best judges who have expressed a view (and are likely to).
So can I ask the leavers on here what is the solution to NI?Hard border breaches the GFA. soft or no border Breaches EU law.
What is the solution please? Anything that is actually practical? No unspecified IT solution that is unknown anywhere in the world please. specifics.
TJ - I asked the same question on the last page to deafening silence.
If the UK changes it's mind and gets kicked out regardless, that's not a question for national law, it's a question for the EU courts.
How exactly can the UK courts rule over an EU issue? What compels the EU courts to abide by the UK courts decision?
mefty - Member
That case wouldn't be settled in the UK supreme court, it would be settled in the European courts, so the supreme courts opinion is largely irrelevant to whether the UK can or can't stop A50.
Forget that - because they are the best judges who have expressed a view (and are likely to).
stealthy edits...
My question still stands.
If the UK changes it's mind and gets kicked out regardless, that's not a question for national law, it's a question for the EU courts.How exactly can the UK courts rule over an EU issue? What compels the EU courts to abide by the UK courts decision?
stealthy edits...
So stealthy I said Forget that, it is an irrelevance to the point I am making, Supreme Court judges do not make comments willy nilly in their judgements. At present, no better source of opinion exists - or is likely to.
How exactly can the UK courts rule over an EU issue? What compels the EU courts to abide by the UK courts decision? (which by your own admission isn't that A50 is irreversible.)
So can I ask the leavers on here what is the solution to NI?Hard border breaches the GFA. soft or no border Breaches EU law.
What is the solution please? Anything that is actually practical? No unspecified IT solution that is unknown anywhere in the world please. specifics.
It's going to be patrolled by cyborgs mounted on unicorns with Spitfires providing air cover.
And don't bother me with specifics - specifics are for experts and I've had enough of them.
We are Britain PLC and we can make anything we want happen simply by wishing hard enough.
Its funny how when you ask a question of the levers thats a bit tricky and asks for specifics you get no answer
Its almost as if they have no answer
Its almost as if they have no answer
Even the most rabid of the swivel-eyed loons are starting to realise that a 'Britain Can Make It' attitude is not the only thing required in these 'negotiations'.
P.S. You do realise that asking awkward questions about specifics that affect a massive number of people is unpatriotic, don't you?
John Redwood letting everyone know what he really thinks of Brexit Britain today. Get your money out apparently.
dannyh - MemberP.S. You do realise that asking awkward questions about specifics that affect a massive number of people is unpatriotic, don't you?
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. 😉
So that's how to make a success of brexit. Who knew?
[img] 
[/img]
NI 2019.
Love the idea that you abuse people off the forum and the expect them to come back with answers. 😯
The leavers are long gone.
I haven't abused anyone to that extent.
Or was the 'you' plural.
Anyway, do you think the Spitfires might frighten the unicorns?
Plural
teamhurtmore - MemberLove the idea that you abuse people off the forum and the expect them to come back with answers.
The leavers are long gone.
Posted 6 minutes ago #
Links/quotes demonstrating 'abuse', please.
And that is [u]abuse[/u] not calling out of BS.
Brexit as a symptom of a wider malaise.
Decent article here by Bonnie Greer.
[url= http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/bonnie-greer-luddites-acceleration-1-5274333 ]Acceleration[/url]
People called out BS, which is fair, but they did it in an abusive way, which isn't.
