It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Brexit court defeat for UK government

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You say that we can sack them all, but how? If we have an early general election then we get to choose from more of the same and given that we have just had a referendum (the non-binding legalities of it aside) will the people feel that they are being represented? The fact that the referendum was advisory only was conveniently kept quiet. General elections are similar - the presentation of policies can be seen as an advisory process where a win does not mean they have to be carried out.

How can we trust that the voice of the people will be listened to or even heard after this farce?

It was clear from the start that MPs were banking on a remain result. I think that remainers and leavers alike also assumed this and you can plainly see that the result was one that no-one had expected and a lot of people who voted leave felt because of this foregone conclusion their vote was a safe protest vote.

If a leave result was deemed to be so economically and politically devastating for the UK then there should never have been one. It has made (and I wonder if this was intentional) one hell of a mess. The fact that this was even being put to the people had ramifications in these areas.




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: YarlanZey

Actually, no. We do not get to pick from more of the same. One of the parties has had a MASSIVE change in direction since the EU referendum, although not one conducive to pushing for prompt exit, I grant you. The fact is that a general election now would be a very close fought and high turnout affair, precisely because there are massive differences between how things were, and how they are now.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
www.express.co.uk...

There is no conflict of interest in this judge ruling on Article 50, is there? Oh lordy no.


Oh, the Express. Of course they are taking a totally impartial look at the challenge that has been raised, and acting accordingly - surely the Express, just like the Daily Mail, wouldn't try and stir up a mob feeling using outright lies to make people see something that isn't there, and surely you wouldn't be so stupid to swallow it.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
Leaving the EU requires Treaty changes, which are part of UK law - as well as changes to various other facets of UK law.

As UK law changes have to go through Parliament, what did anyone really expect? It was obvious Parliament would have to ratify this before Article 50 can be triggered - it is basic UK Parliamentary procedure.

Seriously, the faux outrage at this stage is laughable - just like those bemoaning the rising cost of goods. Now if Parliament refuse to ratify the referendum result, that would be the stage where any outrage is fully justified.


Exactly, this is common Parliamentary prodeedure and on top of that even Farage admits that the referendum wasn't actually binding at all, it was just a load of nonsense 'adivisory notices' and May is breaking Parliamentary Law and Soverignity which is exactly what Brexit campaign were saying voting leave would achieve and wrestle back power and sovereignity from the EU.

On top of this we now have an unelected PM pushing for a hard brexit, refusing to mention any details when the vote was incredibly close - having democratic votes for what tactics/policies are used in leaving the EU is far more democratic than the current dictatorship style approach, where the government refuse to let the public know anything about the negotiations.

These debates votes and views can create the best conditions for the UK post-Brexit - the backlash at the moment goes againt uk law acts of parliament, the uk onstution and other areas of law and democracy - if parliament overturn the democratic vote to leave the EU then people have every right to be mad, but parlaiment is perfectly free to do so as the referendum was non-binding.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Steak
So much for the will of the people....



I guess it's like Orwell said, some animals are more equal than others.

And their votes get counted likewise.


I don't understand why you are being such a contradictory ignoramus. This is not in and of itself anything to do with whether or not brexit will happen, you won that, well done, I know you feel very proud of it. It's about the fact we have parliamentary sovereignty that means the PM on her own cannot set out the terms of brexit with no consultation from the rest of parliament. FFS, if the EU had suggested they would decide the terms solely on their own and we would all have to abide by them with no representation then I'm sure you would have been frothing at the mouth.

Eat your own dog food, stop trying to make it a bigger thing that it is.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Here we go again the brexiters getting all agitated. Here's a fact : practically every MP who voted to remain has stated that article 50 MUST be triggered. How come the brexiters ignore that? Because it prevents them from moaning and bitching and whining as the country starts to feel the consequences (the true direction of the economy won't be apparent until we get close to triggering). At no point was anybody asked what "variety" of leave do we want. This is for parliament to decide NOT an unelected PM. She wasn't even elected by her own party FFS.

In fact there is the ultimate irony. Pre referendum the brexiters whining on and on about losing UK sovereignty to the EU (which was always a myth) and then when a judge states that the elected parliament has sovereignty over an unelected PM they whine again!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus H Christ the utter hypocriscy.

The last thing the brexiters want is for the exit to be analysed and scrutinised so that all the proverbial that will hit the fan will be there for all to see. Well tough. You won the vote now it's time to put up with the consequences.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Oi! I'm a "brexiter" and I'm not moaning.

I fully understand that it has to go to parliament. That's exactly what parliament is for.

I don't understand the faux outrage from some "brexiters" though. It's not like it's a vote of leaving or staying. It's about how to keep current trade, getting new trade, currency, borders, relations and a whole myriad of other things that NEED to be sorted out before we can even think of leaving.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
www.express.co.uk...

There is no conflict of interest in this judge ruling on Article 50, is there? Oh lordy no.


Oh, the Express. Of course they are taking a totally impartial look at the challenge that has been raised, and acting accordingly - surely the Express, just like the Daily Mail, wouldn't try and stir up a mob feeling using outright lies to make people see something that isn't there, and surely you wouldn't be so stupid to swallow it.


Express or not, facts are simply facts.
In this case, one of the judges is closely entwined professionally with the legal framework of the EU



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Steak
So much for the will of the people....



I guess it's like Orwell said, some animals are more equal than others.

And their votes get counted likewise.


I don't understand why you are being such a contradictory ignoramus. This is not in and of itself anything to do with whether or not brexit will happen, you won that, well done, I know you feel very proud of it. It's about the fact we have parliamentary sovereignty that means the PM on her own cannot set out the terms of brexit with no consultation from the rest of parliament. FFS, if the EU had suggested they would decide the terms solely on their own and we would all have to abide by them with no representation then I'm sure you would have been frothing at the mouth.

Eat your own dog food, stop trying to make it a bigger thing that it is.


Well, thanks for the insults there.

Apart from that, you seemed to completely miss the damn point.

Convenient.



I have no faith that hardline remainers like Sturgeon Farron etc will let any article 50 motion pass without various amendments which will dilute or otherwise stymie our position.

There then comes the Lords .


That's my problem.

The sensible thing would be to agree to leave and rescind all the laws and agreements that we took on during membership.

Then let parliament discuss what arrangements they want to make between us and the EU.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Steak
So much for the will of the people....



I guess it's like Orwell said, some animals are more equal than others.

And their votes get counted likewise.


I don't understand why you are being such a contradictory ignoramus. This is not in and of itself anything to do with whether or not brexit will happen, you won that, well done, I know you feel very proud of it. It's about the fact we have parliamentary sovereignty that means the PM on her own cannot set out the terms of brexit with no consultation from the rest of parliament. FFS, if the EU had suggested they would decide the terms solely on their own and we would all have to abide by them with no representation then I'm sure you would have been frothing at the mouth.

Eat your own dog food, stop trying to make it a bigger thing that it is.


Well, thanks for the insults there.

Apart from that, you seemed to completely miss the damn point.

Convenient.



I have no faith that hardline remainers like Sturgeon Farron etc will let any article 50 motion pass without various amendments which will dilute or otherwise stymie our position.

There then comes the Lords .


That's my problem.

The sensible thing would be to agree to leave and rescind all the laws and agreements that we took on during membership.

Then let parliament discuss what arrangements they want to make between us and the EU.



You are free and easy with the insults when you want to dish them out (I seem to remember you calling anyone voting to remain a moron, and that's when you were keeping it civil) - in this case you deserve them for acting like some weird kind of right wing diva. I think you are trying to ignore the point because it suits you. You wanted to get out of some all ruling EU machine because it affected what our parliament can and cannot do, and then moan because it's within the remit of parliament to agree the terms upon which Article 50 is invoked.

Laughable beyond belief.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
www.express.co.uk...

There is no conflict of interest in this judge ruling on Article 50, is there? Oh lordy no.


Oh, the Express. Of course they are taking a totally impartial look at the challenge that has been raised, and acting accordingly - surely the Express, just like the Daily Mail, wouldn't try and stir up a mob feeling using outright lies to make people see something that isn't there, and surely you wouldn't be so stupid to swallow it.


Express or not, facts are simply facts.
In this case, one of the judges is closely entwined professionally with the legal framework of the EU


Facts are 75% of EU law were written by UK judges and it's nigh on impossible to find a high level judge that hasn't been involved.
Only 33% of the judges had been involved in reviewing the high court case so it was suprinsingly impartial.

If the judge was more interested in pay etc over the sovereign law, surely thay'd have gone pro-brexit as they'd make hundreds of millions re writing our laws, the 'bill of rights' that's meant to replace the human rights act when that gets scrapped would take years alone to draft and there'd be decades of appeals once people realise they've given up the right not to be sold to slavery, right to existence, right not to be tortured and so on.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
www.express.co.uk...

There is no conflict of interest in this judge ruling on Article 50, is there? Oh lordy no.


Oh, the Express. Of course they are taking a totally impartial look at the challenge that has been raised, and acting accordingly - surely the Express, just like the Daily Mail, wouldn't try and stir up a mob feeling using outright lies to make people see something that isn't there, and surely you wouldn't be so stupid to swallow it.


Express or not, facts are simply facts.
In this case, one of the judges is closely entwined professionally with the legal framework of the EU


Facts are 75% of EU law were written by UK judges and it's nigh on impossible to find a high level judge that hasn't been involved.
Only 33% of the judges had been involved in reviewing the high court case so it was suprinsingly impartial.

If the judge was more interested in pay etc over the sovereign law, surely thay'd have gone pro-brexit as they'd make hundreds of millions re writing our laws, the 'bill of rights' that's meant to replace the human rights act when that gets scrapped would take years alone to draft and there'd be decades of appeals once people realise they've given up the right not to be sold to slavery, right to existence, right not to be tortured and so on.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Frankly I think you are all insane.
Banging on about the primacy of Parliament.
A place populated by people who's entire existence is about feathering their own nests.


This isn't an argument about parliament versus May or the tories. It's parliament versus the people.

A hell of a dangerous precedent imo.

Of course, maybe you can't see that.


edit on 12pMon, 07 Nov 2016 16:06:12 -060020162016-11-07T16:06:12-06:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Welcome to the hotel California............ you can never leave!

Facist EU pigs



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Frankly I think you are all insane.
Banging on about the primacy of Parliament.
A place populated by people who's entire existence is about feathering their own nests.


This isn't an argument about parliament versus May or the tories. It's parliament versus the people.

A hell of a dangerous precedent imo.

Of course, maybe you can't see that.



Oooo, it's a dangerous precedent for our parliament to be sovereign now? You should have mentioned that to Boris early in June, would have stopped so many people misunderstanding and then they could have known it only does what the PM tells them to do.

You really are turning into a walking red top.
edit on 8-11-2016 by uncommitted because: Amended, I shouldn't sink to the same level



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Frankly I think you are all insane.
Banging on about the primacy of Parliament.
A place populated by people who's entire existence is about feathering their own nests.


This isn't an argument about parliament versus May or the tories. It's parliament versus the people.

A hell of a dangerous precedent imo.

Of course, maybe you can't see that.



No - May is using the Royal Prerogative - her approach is going back to times before parliament with her taking the role of monarch.

This is in the uncodified constitution, it's been law for centuries that due democratic process be followed (though I agree the Lords are a major barrier to this).

This is quite a good source for the information and laws - icon.oxfordjournals.org... - personally I recommend Politics UK by Jones and Norton, British Politics by Leach and Coxhaul and another callled something like a guide to democracy in the UK (huge blue blook about 1500 long, can't find it as was swatting wasps with it last night)

I don't mean those recommendations in a patronising way - I disagree with youor views but you'er usually researched and I myself found out absolutely loads from them - especially the last one as it has around 70 pages on roral prerogative alone - and imagine the debaet on Lords and Sovereignty is something you'd enjoy reading.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Frankly I think you are all insane.
Banging on about the primacy of Parliament.
A place populated by people who's entire existence is about feathering their own nests.


This isn't an argument about parliament versus May or the tories. It's parliament versus the people.

A hell of a dangerous precedent imo.

Of course, maybe you can't see that.



Oooo, it's a dangerous precedent for our parliament to be sovereign now? You should have mentioned that to Boris early in June, would have stopped so many people misunderstanding and then they could have known it only does what the PM tells them to do.

You really are turning into a walking red top.


Again you fail to adress any points I made.

Try and debate a bit if it ain't beyond your limited abilities.
edit on 16pTue, 08 Nov 2016 05:49:16 -060020162016-11-08T05:49:16-06:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Frankly I think you are all insane.
Banging on about the primacy of Parliament.
A place populated by people who's entire existence is about feathering their own nests.


This isn't an argument about parliament versus May or the tories. It's parliament versus the people.

A hell of a dangerous precedent imo.

Of course, maybe you can't see that.



No - May is using the Royal Prerogative - her approach is going back to times before parliament with her taking the role of monarch.

This is in the uncodified constitution, it's been law for centuries that due democratic process be followed (though I agree the Lords are a major barrier to this).

This is quite a good source for the information and laws - icon.oxfordjournals.org... - personally I recommend Politics UK by Jones and Norton, British Politics by Leach and Coxhaul and another callled something like a guide to democracy in the UK (huge blue blook about 1500 long, can't find it as was swatting wasps with it last night)

I don't mean those recommendations in a patronising way - I disagree with youor views but you'er usually researched and I myself found out absolutely loads from them - especially the last one as it has around 70 pages on roral prerogative alone - and imagine the debaet on Lords and Sovereignty is something you'd enjoy reading.


I'll have a look. Thanks :-)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Frankly I think you are all insane.
Banging on about the primacy of Parliament.
A place populated by people who's entire existence is about feathering their own nests.


This isn't an argument about parliament versus May or the tories. It's parliament versus the people.

A hell of a dangerous precedent imo.

Of course, maybe you can't see that.



Oooo, it's a dangerous precedent for our parliament to be sovereign now? You should have mentioned that to Boris early in June, would have stopped so many people misunderstanding and then they could have known it only does what the PM tells them to do.

You really are turning into a walking red top.


Again you fail to adress any points I made.

Try and debate a bit if it ain't beyond your limited abilities.


You aren't attempting to stimulate a debate, you're ranting. Nothing particularly clever about that.

If you want to speak about abilities though, giving an honest opinion of why a lot of people voted for Brexit would be a start. I refer you back to pre vote, when you were quite sanctimonious about that fact that neither you or anyone you knew were voting brexit because of anything to do with immigration - oh dear me no. When I put it to you that many people in my area (and strangely enough on TV come to that) were voting out for precisely that reason, you commented on how sad it must be to be surrounded by racists - I took that as cheap liberal tat. Imagine my surprise to read your comment -


I find it ironic that the woman leading the case was a bloody Ghanian


So a clearly racist comment which is bad enough, but also stupid as your so called abilities don't even extend to getting the name of the country whose population you want to offend right.

Oh dear.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Not every thing is waysist

I have a problem with su per rich foreigners messing around with the country we all have to live in.

If your twisted worldview means it's racist to decry that then so what? If I decided to move to Scotland and campaign against Scottish Independence, I expect Indie minded Scots would hold the opinion that I should bugger off.

Some of my language may at times be a result of my increased blood pressure when I see people cheering this on, not because they care about democracy, but because they are desperate to remain in the EU but so what? It's human to get mad at stuff.

Maybe I'm just disappointed because previously you seemed able to carry an argument rather than simply come over a bit sneery...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join