The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tobes said:
Which they'll lose, as today's ruling was both common sense and unequivocal
Click to expand...
There is an ex government constitution lawyer who believes today's ruling is weak and could be overturned. He had promised to explain his reasoning tomorrow.

There is also a QC who believes the government might change the terms of A50 to bypass this problem and therfore win the appeal by agreeing that A50 is reversible.

I don't think this is quite as cut and dried as you think. Otherwise the government would not appeal.
 
steveninaster1 said:
There is an ex government constitution lawyer who believes today's ruling is weak and could be overturned. He had promised to explain his reasoning tomorrow.

There is also a QC who believes the government might change the terms of A50 to bypass this problem and therfore win the appeal by agreeing that A50 is reversible.

I don't think this is quite as cut and dried as you think. Otherwise the government would not appeal.
Click to expand...

The terms of A50 makes no odds, as the aim of A50 is to remove ourselves from the EU and thus remove the rights of UK citizens that are are currently part of UK law. The fact that it could be reversible alters nothing, as reversible by who? Oh yeah the Govt.

It's bollocks posturing by friendlies mate, today's ruling was plain common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NSIS
steveninaster1 said:
There is an ex government constitution lawyer who believes today's ruling is weak and could be overturned. He had promised to explain his reasoning tomorrow.

There is also a QC who believes the government might change the terms of A50 to bypass this problem and therfore win the appeal by agreeing that A50 is reversible.

I don't think this is quite as cut and dried as you think. Otherwise the government would not appeal.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer but I'd have to agree with Tobes. This is a change to a constitutional law.
Plus, the ruling today was unequivocal. All three high court judges basically threw the Gvt's argument out completely. It would take something very rare to convince the Supreme Court that the high court is that wrong on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
Tobes said:
The terms of A50 makes no odds, as the aim of A50 is to remove ourselves from the EU and thus remove the rights of UK citizens that are are currently part of UK law. The fact that it could be reversible alters nothing, as reversible by who? Oh yeah the Govt.

It's bollocks posturing by friendlies mate, today's ruling was plain common sense.
Click to expand...

It makes all the difference if article 50 is reversible as the triggering of the article itself no longer effects anyone's rights.

It effectively accepts that parliament has final say by allowing them to reject the result of Brexit negotiations without leaving the EU.
 
Question time is grim, some of the thick bell ends in the audience epitomise Brexit

Pete and Kustard will be confused and outraged given that the Tory representative is Sajid Javid, who's a thundercunt Tory but also a Britsih born Muslim
 
steveninaster1 said:
It makes all the difference if article 50 is reversible as the triggering of the article itself no longer effects anyone's rights.

It effectively accepts that parliament has final say by allowing them to reject the result of Brexit negotiations without leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see your point now, however that would need the EU to accept that A50 was reversible before the Supreme Court ruling. The subjective view of some supposed expert won't affect the current consensus that it ain't reversible.

Today's ruling was clear, concise and unequivocal. Contesting it shows the lack of substance behind Brexit means Brexit from May's Govt, as they simply don't want to share their end goals with Parliament as they haven't ****ing agreed them internally ffs!
 
steveninaster1 said:
It makes all the difference if article 50 is reversible as the triggering of the article itself no longer effects anyone's rights.

It effectively accepts that parliament has final say by allowing them to reject the result of Brexit negotiations without leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

That I don't understand, Steven. How so? Just because it might be reversible, doesn't mean it ever will be. Therefore people's rights are still affected.

I also believe that under the terms of the EU treaty, once article 50 is triggered it is not then reversible except by the agreement of all members of the EU. Effectively, the UK would have to reapply for membership.?

it seems to me, that it's pretty much irreversible one way or another?
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
That I don't understand, Steven. How so? Just because it might be reversible, doesn't mean it ever will be. Therefore people's rights are still affected.

I also believe that under the terms of the EU treaty, once article 50 is triggered it is not then reversible except by the agreement of all members of the EU. Effectively, the UK would have to reapply for membership.?

it seems to me, that it's pretty much irreversible one way or another?
Click to expand...

Tusk has already given indications that they would be willing to reverse A50. If May feels that the EU want Brexit over and done with she could push them on this based on the obvious delays otherwise. Also she would have a ruling from the highest court in the land on her side.

As to your first point. Whether May triggers A50 or not the legislation to replace the rights given will still need to be passed by parliament. The reason why royal perogative is unlawful is because if parliament votes against the new legislation we get hard Brexit and those rights are lost anyway even though parliament didn't vote for the change.
 
Last edited:
The tabloid stalwart of British democracy, passes comment on the ruling that ensures the correct democratic process is adhered to

You must log in or register to see media

Pete will no doubt post this headline while he's waiting for Ula to fry his egg snd sausages about 7 a.m.

He'll be nodding furiously as the egg yolk dribbles down his 5 chins
 
Last edited:
steveninaster1 said:
Tusk has already given indications that they would be willing to reverse A50. If May feels that the EU want Brexit over and done with she could push them on this based on the obvious delays otherwise. Also she would have a ruling from the highest court in the land on her side.

As to your first point. Whether May triggers A50 or not the legislation to replace the rights given will still need to be passed by parliament. The reason why royal perogative is unlawful is because if parliament votes against the new legislation we get hard Brexit and those rights are lost anyway even though parliament didn't vote for the change.
Click to expand...

But surely Tusk would still need the approval of all member states? In which case, he's making or hinting at promises he can't keep?
 
Tobes said:
The tabloid stalwart of British democracy, passes comment on the ruling that ensures the correct democratic process is adhered to

You must log in or register to see media

Pete will no doubt post this headline while he's waiting for Ula to fry his egg snd sausages about 7 a.m.

He'll be nodding furiously as the egg yolk dribbles down his 5 chins
Click to expand...

The Fail have excelled themselves with that garbage. Even in the murky, seamy world of UK tabloids, they're an utter disgrace.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
But surely Tusk would still need the approval of all member states? In which case, he's making or hinting at promises he can't keep?
Click to expand...
Yes, effectively the UK government would be triggering A50 on the basis that it's constitution insists parliament has final say on whether to accept the Brexit negotiations and so the auto out after 2 years cannot be accepted.

What I think John Maugham is driving at is that A50 isn't fit for purpose and the UK might be using this appeal as a bargaining tool to affect how A50 is carried out.
I agree with you and Tobes that the ruling is fairly straightforward and the judges didn't even need the claimants arguments to make a decision, so this begs the question of why appeal unless you are going to soften your stance. If that doesn't work then it's off to parliament anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NSIS
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back