Brexit court defeat for UK government

[Octopus]

If the EU is such a wonderful success, why has the EU got the 2nd lowest growth in the entire world?

Why has the EU consigned a generation or more in southern Europe to the trash bin?

Why has the pursuit of the Euro for all new entrants been continued as its clear for everybody to see that its a failed project as the economies are too diverse?

Why is there so much angst among the populations at the "elite" in Brussels?

Why did the UK "remain" camp do such a poor job at presenting their side of the argument?

The political situation in Europe is going to get worse, far worse in the next 5 years IMHO.

And my final point is that if the UK had joined the Euro, we would have been "f x c ked" many years ago

 

[Gavin A]

If the EU is such a wonderful success... bit of a straw man start to the post.

why has the EU got the 2nd lowest growth in the entire world?
Austerity.

Why has the pursuit of the Euro for all new entrants been continued as its clear for everybody to see that its a failed project as the economies are too diverse?
Because it benefits the stronger economies in the Eurozone to have a weaker currency, which having weaker countries as part of it ensures it will be relative to the strength of the German Mark.

Why is there so much angst among the populations at the "elite" in Brussels?
Austerity mainly

Why did the UK "remain" camp do such a poor job at presenting their side of the argument?
Because it was largely presented by tories who're also ideologically wedded to austerity and neoliberalism, so they couldn't make the argument about it being better to stay in the EU and reform those elements of it together with our cousins in Europe, than to run away from it and leave ourselves entirely open to the same or worse policies from the Tories unshackled by the EU.

The political situation in Europe is going to get worse, far worse in the next 5 years IMHO.
Same in the UK.

And my final point is that if the UK had joined the Euro, we would have been "f x c ked" many years ago

I'm not in favour of the Euro as currently structured, but the German experience makes a fair case for our manufacturing sector to have been far better off with us actually having been far far better off if we'd been in the Euro.

Much of that increased German exports since the Euro is coming to us, and is responsible for displacing UK manufacturing.

The Euro has been really bad for the weaker countries like Greece, but really really good for stronger manufacturing countries. Our manufacturers have been having to compete with the Germans with our hands tied together because they've got the advantage of a relatively much weaker currency than we've had, plus stable currency across all transactions within the EU (other than for us). We have to price in for the higher currency and potential currency fluctuations, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

 

[Darkwood]

it won't be overturned, their legal ruling is a correct interpretation of the law, as was completely clear in the terms of the original referendum legislation.

Parliament will make the final decision be it to accept May's proposals, amend them, reject them, or send the final proposals back to the people for a 2nd binding referendum.

We don't live in a county with an all powerful ruler who determines the country's fate by themselves without reference to parliament, we live in a parliamentary democracy.

I'm finding it quite concerning that some of the arguments against this court case and parliament getting to vote on this (eg that made by one of UKIP's leadership candidates) is veering dangerously close to support for a fascist state - judges should be answerable to the government, the leader should take this huge decision without reference to parliament etc.

In your view it may be a mere technicality, but it's an incredibly important technicality as anything else would mean we no longer lived in a parliamentary democracy.

Have a read of this, surprisingly an unbiased view and pretty acurate

Was the EU referendum “advisory”? - https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

You can see the argument it pretty strong on both parties but our way of doing things differs to that of other EU members and yes if you pick the nitty gritty of the laws then the High Court are correct but its the challenge itself which flouts the Democratic nature here as we have always voted using the Politically Binding method hence this is just a deliberate attempt to block the process, the High Court have to quote the law but it cannot comment on whether method used is still politically binding, the Supreme Court have the power to view the use of the law past and present and whether it really has any bearing in the manner its been brought against the Government and also what is in the interest of the result and our position on negotiations, this in itself is enough to overturn the High Court but my personal deep down fear is the Judges themselves as they all have vested interest or past links to the EU and all judges should be impartial but how do you find an impartial Judge in a Supreme court given the route most go through in life to become a Judge, you don't find your average town hall judge or lawyer getting to sit at the Supreme court as a Judge.

Also have a look into one of the 3 people who brought the challenge, in particular Gina Miller (Anti Brexit campaigner), check out her history ...

Now the Mirror is Pro -EU and very left wing (which suprises even me to put a link to aid my point), even they scathed this women with a well written article, rare for the Mirror to defend the result of the referendum, this shows you why this challenge is just the mega wealthy trying to disrupt brexit through self interest and not considering the electorate.

Gina Miller's daft Wrexit will be even worse than Brexit - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elitist-gina-millers-daft-wrexit-9204861

 

[Gavin A]

(3)If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of [F19the EUTreaties] as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded; but a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972, other than a pre-accession treaty to which the United Kingdom accedes on terms settled on or before that date, shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4)For purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, “treaty” includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement.

That's from the 1972 treaty, which basically states that any change to any of the EU Treaties, or new Treaties or agreements with the EU can only be entered into following approval by both houses of parliament.

Nothing in the referendum legislation did that, and it can't be done via statutory instrument (which effectively is what would have to happen if it weren't to have proper legislation and proper parliamentary discussion and votes.

 

[Gavin A]

Commencement or repeal of amending provisions
(1)The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—

(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and

(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

(2)If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions.

That's taken from the AV referendum, it's the section that made that referendum a binding referendum.

There's no similar section or provision in the EU referendum legislation, without it the referendum is a non-binding referendum and would require a separate act of parliament to actually put the referendum decision into law.

This is all pretty basic stuff, it shows how ignorant of the law those in charge of this process (ie May, and the 3 brexiteers) actually are that they ever even contemplated doing this without parliamentary debate and approval.

 

[Gavin A]

it's very rare that I do this, but here's Margaret Thatcher's take on the dangers of referendums, which we're now witnessing.

In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher also quoted Clement Attlee that referendums are “a device of dictators and demagogues” as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler had exploited their use in the past.

The idea that a referendum on a very broad question should then give the leader a mandate to basically do whatever they want within that broad mandate without any parliamentary scrutiny is taking us down the road that leads to fascism. Even Thatcher recognised this.

Also questioning the independence of the judiciary has similar negative historical precedents.

Clem Attlee had the same concern.

Clement Attlee refused citing ‘I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism.’

 

[The Ghost]

You talk of government as some sort of demi-god. The people in government are there through the electorate. The laws they make are on we the peoples behalf. Those laws do not abrogate our sovereignty, which In my opinion is the crucial matter at stake here in the matter of the people v. the elected. We have decided to leave Euwww. Parliament should now enact the will of the people. And btw "parliamentary democracy" is an oxymoron.

 

[Pat H]

We decided to leave based on promises that can't be delivered we now discover. So its appropriate that parliament clarify that position and ensure the will of the people is in the best interests of the country.

 

[The Ghost]

Because of course Parliament knows best? And the people are too stupid no doubt so have to be checked by their betters?

 

[Pat H]

Better hope parliament knows best. They make our laws ans set our taxes and a lot more. Why have them at all if they are worthless than the man on the street.

 

[westward10]

You talk of government as some sort of demi-god. The people in government are there through the electorate. The laws they make are on we the peoples behalf. Those laws do not abrogate our sovereignty, which In my opinion is the crucial matter at stake here in the matter of the people v. the elected. We have decided to leave Euwww. Parliament should now enact the will of the people. And btw "parliamentary democracy" is an oxymoron.

We now have a non elected Prime Minister.

 

[Pat H]

We now have a non elected Prime Minister.

That's democracy for you.

 

[Darkwood]

We decided to leave based on promises that can't be delivered we now discover. So its appropriate that parliament clarify that position and ensure the will of the people is in the best interests of the country.

You forget the remain had there own part in making false statements, scaremongering etc ...seems many remainers have short memories when they make this argument, take Obama's interjection saying we will be at the back of the queue... he had no right to say that and had no backing to it either as he was not going to be in the Whitehouse anyway so it was an empty threat... so far everyone of the IMF and the BofE doom bringing predictions has not come to fruition and further more the opposite has happened.. the only thing that changed was the pound and been a floating currency and the fact it was already too high, it was of no surprise it dipped sharply but even in its position it is now it has helped stem of an Economical down turn by boosting exports .. so when you say the country was misled and failed promises is quite hypocritical given the campaign by the remainers that even stole 10million of tax payers money to give a biased leaflet campaign.. this breached the rules of party funding for the campaign and cannot be challenged on a technicality, given the then PM is no longer is another reason it'd pointless to challenge it.

 

[Gavin A]

You talk of government as some sort of demi-god. The people in government are there through the electorate. The laws they make are on we the peoples behalf. Those laws do not abrogate our sovereignty, which In my opinion is the crucial matter at stake here in the matter of the people v. the elected. We have decided to leave Euwww. Parliament should now enact the will of the people. And btw "parliamentary democracy" is an oxymoron.

On what terms did the will of the people say we should leave the EU?

The government aren't really there because of the will of the people, they were elected by something like 24% of the potential electorate, in large part because they for £10 million more in donations than Labour, largely from the city, as well as having the support of the big media owners. And this government weren't elected by anyone, they have no mandate at all, but are using the Brexit vote as if it's the only mandate they need to negotiate whatever form of exit they can without the rest of parliament or the country having any further say in it.

 

[The Ghost]

Interesting points! 66% of the electorate turned out in the last elections. Cons 331 seats over half of 650 Lab 231 maybe a third. So not sure where you get 24% from. Accepted the curent gov is not elected. However a vote was taken on whether to leave EU, the majority said leave. As I see it the people have spoken it behoves the gov. to act accordingly which Theresa May, may. Good news I say.

 

[Gavin A]

so far everyone of the IMF and the BofE doom bringing predictions has not come to fruition and further more the opposite has happened..

The pound has fallen about 12% since brexit, and 25% since the start of the year against the Euro due to the uncertainty around Brexit before the vote.

Construction was down 1.4% in the quarter since Brexit, Manufacturing down 0.4% (it had grown at 2.1% the previous quarter so that's a fair sized impact).

That's a pretty significant impact considering we haven't left yet.

 

[Barry White]

The pound will always fall during uncertaincys, so has the dollar with the Trump election. Nobody has said leaving the EU will make a stronger pound. Until we leave and stabilise nothing is certain.
I dont blame Teresa May for keeping her cards close to her chest you dont reveal your plans to your opponents unless you have to

 

[Gavin A]

The pound will always fall during uncertaincys, so has the dollar with the Trump election. Nobody has said leaving the EU will make a stronger pound.

maybe not, but when the remain campaigners were pointing out what would inevitably happen in the event of a brexit vote they were met with accusations of this being part of project fear etc.

As you say, it was inevitable, and there was a case to have been made for a reduction in the pound's value to have been a long term benefit to the UK because of the increase in exports / improvement in the balance of trade deficit with Europe etc. But I didn't hear the leave campaign making that case, so it's just happened and nobody has a clue what the government strategy is for it in the medium to longer term so it's just causing the damaging impacts without the majority of the potential positive impacts that it could have.

 

[Spoon]

Why are people still whinging about the lies that both sides said.
BOTH SIDES LIED....... get over it...

 

[Gavin A]

Why are people still whinging about the lies that both sides said.
BOTH SIDES LIED....... get over it...

why are people still telling other people to get over it?

This is the biggest decision to happen to this country in decades, it's already having a massive impact on our business, and the decisions now being taken behind closed doors will go on having a huge impact on our lives for decades to come.

If this was such a good idea, and one that's not worthy of any further debate, why is there no plan after nearly 6 months?