|
Post by Jim on Nov 4, 2016 7:02:17 GMT
The Tories have been forced to act within the law, over brexit (whatever that means!) , by a judicial review.
Quick pause while I dance and cheer, Yay! So what's the prospect of doing the same with CRT and it's illegal actions?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 7:13:56 GMT
The Tories have been forced to act within the law, over brexit (whatever that means!) , by a judicial review. Quick pause while I dance and cheer, Yay! snip But going to appeal quick pause to dance and cheer, yay It's bullshit, they voted to let us have a referendum ( by a large majority ) now they don't like the result and are now acting like politicians weasels
|
|
|
Post by patty on Nov 4, 2016 7:53:28 GMT
The papers are having a meltdown..their ingenuity for headline pullers are being given full reign. They also question the judges background to raise suitability criteria for this esteemed trio to sit in judgement over a decision made by the will of the people. British justice is as it always has been...
MP's debating and deciding whether to go against what the people have chosen sets dangerous precedent..they succeed in this then no point in having any referendum.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 8:03:09 GMT
I don't think people realise how thin is the veneer of civilisation.
When governments start ignoring the will of a majority, it can be the start of a slippery slope, that ends with people decorating lamp posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 8:05:07 GMT
I know CRT are a bit big for their boots but are they running the country now?
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 4, 2016 8:08:30 GMT
They haven't overruled the will of the people you big bunch of muppets.
The law is clear that only Parliament have the power to invoke article 50. The judges expressed no opinion over the invocation of article 50, just that the law must be followed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 8:11:51 GMT
I thought politics was ba....
Oh no that's the other place. More tea.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 4, 2016 8:12:27 GMT
The Tories have been forced to act within the law, over brexit (whatever that means!) , by a judicial review. Quick pause while I dance and cheer, Yay! snip But going to appeal quick pause to dance and cheer, yay It's bullshit, they voted to let us have a referendum ( by a large majority ) now they don't like the result and are now acting like politicians weasels who is the second "they" ? I think you haven't really got hold of the plot. or perhaps you aren't aware of the principle that the government executive and the judiciary are entirely separate.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 8:19:49 GMT
But going to appeal quick pause to dance and cheer, yay It's bullshit, they voted to let us have a referendum ( by a large majority ) now they don't like the result and are now acting like politicians weasels who is the second "they" ? I think you haven't really got hold of the plot.or perhaps you aren't aware of the principle that the government executive and the judiciary are entirely separate. I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. "They" voted to give by a large majority, a referendum and agreed it to be binding. the fact is "they" (still the same) thought it would go the other way. "they" (the same ones who voted to let us have a referendum) don't like the result ... it was not the way "they" (again the same parliament) thought the sheep could be frightened into voting. Now "they" (again the same ones) are trying by any means possible to weasel out of a result they didn't foresee.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 4, 2016 8:33:57 GMT
who is the second "they" ? I think you haven't really got hold of the plot.or perhaps you aren't aware of the principle that the government executive and the judiciary are entirely separate. I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. "They" voted to give by a large majority, a referendum and agreed it to be binding. the fact is "they" (still the same) thought it would go the other way. "they" (the same ones who voted to let us have a referendum) don't like the result ... it was not the way "they" (again the same parliament) thought the sheep could be frightened into voting. Now "they" (again the same ones) are trying by any means possible to weasel out of a result they didn't foresee. Firstly, 'they' never agreed that the referendum would be legally binding. Secondly. they are not weaselling out of the result. Brexit will still happen. Article 50 will still be invoked, it will just be done by parliament instead of some daft old woman that nobody voted for.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Nov 4, 2016 8:38:23 GMT
I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. "They" voted to give by a large majority, a referendum and agreed it to be binding. the fact is "they" (still the same) thought it would go the other way. "they" (the same ones who voted to let us have a referendum) don't like the result ... it was not the way "they" (again the same parliament) thought the sheep could be frightened into voting. Now "they" (again the same ones) are trying by any means possible to weasel out of a result they didn't foresee. Firstly, 'they' never agreed that the referendum would be legally binding. Secondly. they are not weaselling out of the result. Brexit will still happen. Article 50 will still be invoked, it will just be done by parliament instead of some daft old woman that nobody voted for. The people of Maidenhead voted for her.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 8:40:02 GMT
I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. "They" voted to give by a large majority, a referendum and agreed it to be binding. the fact is "they" (still the same) thought it would go the other way. "they" (the same ones who voted to let us have a referendum) don't like the result ... it was not the way "they" (again the same parliament) thought the sheep could be frightened into voting. Now "they" (again the same ones) are trying by any means possible to weasel out of a result they didn't foresee. Firstly, 'they' never agreed that the referendum would be legally binding. Secondly. they are not weaselling out of the result. Brexit will still happen. Article 50 will still be invoked, it will just be done by parliament instead of some daft old woman that nobody voted for. To a certain extent I can agree .... the problem being that so many of the (originally remainers) are wanting to know the ins and outs of the negotiating positions. This is ridiculous as it means in public view you are saying what is the WORST deal you will accept ...... not a sensible way to enter negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 4, 2016 8:42:36 GMT
Firstly, 'they' never agreed that the referendum would be legally binding. Secondly. they are not weaselling out of the result. Brexit will still happen. Article 50 will still be invoked, it will just be done by parliament instead of some daft old woman that nobody voted for. To a certain extent I can agree .... the problem being that so many of the (originally remainers) are wanting to know the ins and outs of the negotiating positions. This is ridiculous as it means in public view you are saying what is the WORST deal you will accept ...... not a sensible way to enter negotiations. But that has nothing to do with this judicial review...
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 4, 2016 8:43:11 GMT
Look at my thread in politics on there is the bit of paper sent out to every household in the land it says they will enact the the referendum and it was passed by an act of parliment 6 to 1 so its the law [was on tv last night] The government expects to win in the supreme court and thats it the EU is down the pan hooray!!!!!!! And as an aside Mrs May was voted for by her constituents and the law says you cant have an election for change of PM jobs done the quicker its done the better
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 8:44:44 GMT
To a certain extent I can agree .... the problem being that so many of the (originally remainers) are wanting to know the ins and outs of the negotiating positions. This is ridiculous as it means in public view you are saying what is the WORST deal you will accept ...... not a sensible way to enter negotiations. But that has nothing to do with this judicial review... But it is the result if it is allowed to stand
|
|