The EU debate - Part III

It doesn't seem logical if parliament decided to grant a referendum - seemingly to act on the decision - and then didn't include in the legislation that the government would act on it. The concept of an "advisory" referendum is a total nonsense.

 

Your post is entirely different, and you know it!
Don't worry, I'm sure you're precious Brexit will go through eventually. Just that it won't be the via the idiotic methods proposed by Fox & co.

 

You'll have to blame the Conservative party for that Pete.

 

The public voted for Brexit. They did not vote for a hard Brexit.
Parliament is there to temper the idiotic excesses of the far right brigade.

 

Comparing my recent posts to your reply, which bits are different?

 

Mark Carney humbled by Bank's U-turn: He makes biggest EVER upgrade to official growth forecasts and admits they got it wrong
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ficial-growth-forecasts-admits-got-wrong.html

 

I agree, but it has left some with what they see as an excuse to prolong the process and the court ruling has empowered that.

The choices are to spend time arguing the verdict, or to accept it and spend time jumping through the hoop.

In my view, the former will just leave some feeling justified in their indignance at the will of the people being enabled and the latter is quicker and provides a more robust outcome.

I reckon either way there'll be some looking for other ways to delay it, whilst claiming the uncertainty is damaging.

 

Mark Carney humbled by Bank's U-turn: He makes biggest EVER upgrade to official growth forecasts and admits they got it wrong

beaten to it

 

I'm in the gym.

But I obviously disagree entirely upon you're trying to blame this case on remain voters.it was brought as it was felt that May was trying to ride roughshod over parliament and therefore democracy.

It has been decided and I doubt it will be overturned.

 

I've never thought they could act logically anyway.

 

We disagree on their motives, but we agree on the rest.

 

It's interesting to see the reactions of the different sides. The leave voters on here tend to be accepting of a decision that they don't necessarily agree with, and look to ways to move things forward constructively. The others seem intent on negativity and argument.

 

It's a clear example of the difference between maturity and immaturity

 

The debate would be better served if people could use the correct terms. Its not a demarcation between the state and the judiciary that is at issue here (the judiciary is part of the state), it is what the law of the land says about the powers of the Legislature versus the Executive. Anyone who supported leave because they didn't like the fact that Parliament had passed a Law that made certain UK Laws subservient to those of the EU should be rejoicing in the Court ruling because the Executive was claiming that it had the power to alter the Laws of the UK to remove the people's rights without even passing an Act of Parliament. This would have been a disastrous precedent so it was perfectly proper for it to be challenged.
The interaction with the referendum is interesting because the Court confirmed that Parliament was the highest law making body in the country (I'm not sure what else they could have found to be honest). If the Referendum Act had either explicitly given Ministers powers to repeal certain laws or even made repealing them a consequence of a leave vote then we wouldn't be in this mess. The fact that the Executive doesn't understand the laws of the land well enough to get us into this state should be sufficient reason for voting them out at the next election. But since the electoral system allows them to be in power when 63% of people opposed them I'm not sure how we can do this.

 

I disagree again.

As I said earlier, this needed to be decided. Not just for the Brexit issue, but ultimately to decide just how much power a PM and his/her Gvt have to ride over constitutional law without the authority of parliament.

The only reason the leavers aren't all doing a Daily Fail, is because they're still sure that their beloved Brexit will still go through. Otherwise, you'd all be screaming like stuck pigs!

 

Fair comment on the terminology.

It's a fuzzy line, as parliament may well create the legislation, but the interpretation of that legislation and how it becomes enacted is to a fair extent down to the judiciary. Which bits of legislation, and how it becomes interpreted can come down to who can afford the best legal team.

 

Obviously you don't understand democracy. 63% of people didn't oppose them. They voted for somebody else.
How did you vote in the 2011 referendum?

 

As I said, we've both reached the same outcome and are in agreement, albeit for different reasons.

The real question and discussion is what happens next.

 

And the difference is...?

If 63%! Voted for someone else, they opposed the Gvt!

 

Government should appeal.
If government does lose the appeal then introduce a one line bill - the referendum was yes or no.