It seems that my view (as at last August) turns out to be also the Lord Chief Justice's judgment (as at today). And it will undoubtedly be the Supreme Court's view too, if the case gets that far. Prerogative power cannot override primary legislation, and the government cannot circumvent Parliament. It's a very simple point indeed.
Oh my Goat. I can just see the movie that comes out all this: Clash of the Privileged, Out-Of-Touch Power Blocs "Long ago, in a galaxy far, far removed from reality ..."
So we have this Brexit thing that the majority voted for but which our elected politicians were against. Then we have a High Court judgement effectively stating that Brexit cannot happen without the blessing of Parliament ... ... and it's only Brexiteers who are having a problem with any of this? I guess that answers one question - why aren't Remoaners concerned by the anti-democratic nature of the EU? Answer: they do not give one shit about democracy* Mystery solved! *I'll happily explain what "democracy" is to any SNP supporters we might have on the forum. Just ask.
Quite. If Mrs May imagines she can subvert the sovereignty of Parliament and use prerogative power to override the law, then she is indeed far, far removed from reality.
Agreed. No one can be allowed to interfere with the Parliamentary process. Least of all, the electorate. Concerning prerogative power ... when can this be used? Could May use it to, say, affect a change of menu in the Houses of Parliament? Acquire a reserved parking space for herself? I'm interested.
but didnt you just vote to take back control? you courts (not the EU) have just taken back control. :Hilarious::smileys:. here, hows this for a conspiracy theory? :Cigar::smileys: Lets imagine a hyperthetical scenario where some rich group of oligarchical parasites have billions invested in offshore accounts and want to make even more money. How about they rig a referendum that causes the value of the pound to drop considerably giving themselves the opportunity to make vast profits by buying out UK companies, stock and futures at a considerably reduced price. They then go back on the result of the referendum and through time and tax payer investment reverse the damage done to the pound. How much would their "investments" now be worth? I am not saying this has happened but the sad thing is we now live in a society where you would not be surprised if you found out that it had
Why the hell can't a vote, held country wide, override a need for a small collective to vote. Parliament did the referendum and put it to a public vote. This should effectively remove their need to vote afterwards. The public voted. End! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have little doubt in my mind that the scenario you describe has been envisaged by some individuals somewhere. It may even be more true than either of us seriously imagine. The High Court has done its thing, it wants everyone to know that it has clout and it does interesting things - the very soul and lifeblood of your average, middle-order legal eagle. The Supreme Court's decision may well cast more light on what it is that the political elite actually wants to have happen. The High Court's only role in any of this is to be the path to the Supreme Court - as usual.
May doesn't have a mandate for anything really, prerogative or otherwise. She isn't even an elected Prime Minister. Well the Brexit lot wanted the British Parliament to have total control. Now they have got it. If you read the Courts ruling it seems unlikely it will get over turned on appeal. What the ruling says It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union Allowing MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal at the end of the negotiations would not amount to parliamentary approval because once Article 50 is triggered there is no way that the UK will not leave the EU, and in doing so existing laws will be changed David Davis points out that MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view. The whole referendum was ill thought through, badly set up and now has turned into an utter fiasco as it appears to have no legal standing.
"Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.' Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal
Yeah, but no one believes you on anything unrelated to cables and belts. Hell, you've been telling finm for months that he is crap at politics but he didn't believe you. It took me weighing in and telling him myself before he would accept that. :Bucktooth:
tbh, i cant really see a way back into the bosom of the EU for the uk now, unless the diplomats have some hidden talents up their sleeves
Hello? Is anyone at home? The referendum was advisory. A-D-V-I-S-O-R-Y. That means it is not legally binding, and it was never going to be binding. It might have been possible to hold a binding referendum, but the one held last June simply wasn't. Got it now @JH_1986 ?
Daily exposure to the rarefied and constrictive language of the legal profession will often place a person in the position of being entirely unable to see the wood for the trees. I wonder whether such a person can register as disabled?
