More anti-brexit court case

[SarahBell]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/28/theresa-may-faces-brexit-legal-challenge-single-market-withdrawal/

 

 

[wsn03]

Theresa May I think is going to make herself the leader of the fight to implement Brexit, and will probably go down in history as a hero if she pulls it off, just like Thatcher is remembered for defending the Falklands as much as anything else. Ironic considering she was a Remainer. A big battle, but it will certainly give her a lasting legacy of standing up for the majority.

I think Brexit will become more and more popular the longer people try to oppose it.

[MrMonkey]

Its not a question of opposing it, so much as understanding the legal steps that need to be in place to make a withdrawal from the EU legitimate. The scandal is that the Government are trying to implement changes which are not legally robust. The law is not something we should ignore when it is inconvenient - the UK wants to leave the EU and it will do so, but it needs to be done properly and not on the back of a fag packet if we want it to be a success. Otherwise we risk the process being derailed at the last minute because it was not managed properly, like a moron on Grand Designs who has to pull down their expensive eco-home because they didn't bother to apply for planning permission before starting on the foundations.

[wsn03]

I think you'll find there exists a large body of people who live in the hope that tripping up the process enough they will, with help from the EU, eventually derail it, probably with the support of the electorate. To assume everyone is ok with this going through because that's what everyone voted for is a nice fantasy - the fact is some people think that democracy is ok as long as they get the results they want, when they don't then its not ok and a different approach needs to be tried.

I'm afraid I don't believe there are good intentions behind this or any other court case.

[MrMonkey]

Indeed. But even if these people did not exist then the Government should be following the correct processes to leave the EU. It doesn't matter if there are people who want to campaign against Brexit (which is their right - after all, UKIP campaigned for it for years). If the Government starts circumventing the law then we will end up with a mess of a deal as we leave the UK, without the proper oversight by Parliament and without proper legal underpinning to handle the transition of powers back to the UK.

For example, the last ruling was that the UK needs Parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50. If this case was not brought at the time, but was raised by the European Commission towards the end of the EU negotiations, it could void any agreements that had been made as the UK would not have been in a position to make them. Doing things properly and with due process protects the Government, not hinders it.

[wsn03]

I fully agree with you, I guess I feel people are using what should be the correct process to try to reverse the whole process.

Damn, I'll need to look elsewhere for a Monday morning argument...

Edited November 28, 2016 by wsn03

[rahhhh]

I think that they may be right on this. The UK is a party to the agreement. There are also other agreements we are a party to like the CETA agreement and the South Korea one. Normally it would be just a case of the executive (the government) signing in our out of these, but the Article 50 case means that parliament may have to vote on this as well.

[Byron]

Well, if Gordon could just sign us into the Lisbon treaty, why cannot Mrs May sign us out?

[honkydonkey]

8 minutes ago, Byron said:

Well, if Gordon could just sign us into the Lisbon treaty, why cannot Mrs May sign us out?

Not signed many contracts in you're time I'm guessing.

[Peter Hun]

6 hours ago, rahhhh said:

I think that they may be right on this. The UK is a party to the agreement. There are also other agreements we are a party to like the CETA agreement and the South Korea one. Normally it would be just a case of the executive (the government) signing in our out of these, but the Article 50 case means that parliament may have to vote on this as well.

There is no reason why Parliment would vote to leave the EEA as it is quite definitly not the EU.

I always wondered why Cameron gave the the SNP the right to choose the question in the Scottish referendum, because it really does require the right question to be asked.

[rahhhh]

it does show the importance of the article 50 case. A huge change in the power that the government has (as opposed to the parliament). But the case in question here is possibly good for Brexit. It would mean that agreements such as CETA would continue after we left the EU. As the government appears to be going for a CETA (canadian) plus deal, the negotiations are a lot easier if we start from the position that CETA already holds and that we are just looking for a few extra parts to be added to it. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by rahhhh

[GrizzlyDave]

The rich 1%ers using their wealth to stall and delay brexit. That's all this amounts to.

[cool_hand]

 MrMonkey talks a load of dribble. The only reason for these legal challenges is to try and delay and if possible thwart Brexit and nothing to do with wanting to uphold due process.

Anyway we don't need to inact Article 50 to leave, we just leave.

http://moneyweek.com/dont-trigger-article-50-just-leave/

A hard Brexit should absolutely be our position - otherwise what is the point?

Edited November 29, 2016 by cool_hand

[MrMonkey]

I never said that the legal challenges are not there to delay Brexit - just that regardless of the reasons for them due process should be followed. The reason for the case is unimportant. What is important is that things are done properly to ensure that the process is legitimate, and has the correct Parliamentary scrutiny (which is one of the things that the Leave campaign told us was important).

The referendum was a poorly planned mess which was never designed to deal with a vote to leave the EU. There was no plan for Brexit. The referendum was advisory (hence why Parliament needs to be involved - if you want to blame somebody then David Cameron is your man). And clearly nobody even started getting proper legal advice on the complexities of leaving until we got a new PM. It is daft to suggest that "A hard Brexit should absolutely be our position". Says who? Not the 52% who voted to leave the EU. The nature of the exit deal was never put to the public. Simply leaving the EU without significant notice would have economic, political and social consequences. I expect that some of these would be quite severe. And, as is common with economic unrest, it is the poor and the vulnerable who would suffer the most.

It is ironic that, on a forum where so much discussion is about the impacts of short-sighted government policy for political gain at the expense of social benefit, there is support for the Government to act without proper scrutiny and in such a way that would serve the political desires of the Government over the needs of the country. A quick Brexit would make Theresa May look powerful. But I have no confidence that it would actually make things better for the UK. For example, what would happen to UK businesses trading with the EU if they were told that they have three months to adapt to this change?

We are going to leave the EU. Lets just make sure that we do it properly and do not overly damage our economic and political ties to the rest of the world in the process.

[knock out johnny]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The rich 1%ers using their wealth to stall and delay brexit. That's all this amounts to.

I'm not a 1%er but I want brexit stalled and delayed, because the alternative is the Executive taking away my rights without Parliament being consulted

The Executive can do one

Edited November 29, 2016 by knock out johnny

[the gardener]

Weasel words Mr Monkey.

[Byron]

48 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

I'm not a 1%er but I want brexit stalled and delayed, because the alternative is the Executive taking away my rights without Parliament being consulted

The Executive can do one

I can see where you are coming from on this one, but in this specific case the executive does have a 'revealed by referendum' popular mandate, not just some sort of whim.

Clearly, invoking Article 50 without Parliamentary overview does set some sort of precedent.

However the Welsh and Scottish devolution referendums went ahead without this weasely backlash.

Most voters thought that the vote against the EU was the same as the devolution referenda and were annoyed to find that it was 'Only advisory'

Smacks of dirty dealing all along by the remain camp.

[cool_hand]

MrMonkey: can you provide evidence for your doom gloom predictions? You sound just like the Osbourne and Carney who were predicting an immediate recession if we voted to leave - it never materialized. We were told that business would not invest in the UK, yet we've seen the complete opposite (Google, Facebook, Nissan). You miss the whole point about leaving the EU, it's a declining market, our future is with the rest of the world. And I toally disagree with your assumptions that the poor will be the worst hit - IMO the opposite is true. But as I say perhaps you can provide some evidence for your predictions? Weasel words indeed.

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, cool_hand said:

MrMonkey: can you provide evidence for your doom gloom predictions? You sound just like the Osbourne and Carney who were predicting an immediate recession if we voted to leave - it never materialized. We were told that business would not invest in the UK, yet we've seen the complete opposite (Google, Facebook, Nissan). You miss the whole point about leaving the EU, it's a declining market, our future is with the rest of the world. And I toally disagree with your assumptions that the poor will be the worst hit - IMO the opposite is true. But as I say perhaps you can provide some evidence for your predictions? Weasel words indeed.

You're a good example of why the Germans are right.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-theresa-may-pre-brexit-expats-plan-nixed-by-german-chancellor-angela-merkel-negotiations-european-union-residence/

They [the Germans] are convinced that Britain will only negotiate realistically once the weakness of its hand has sunk in with the Conservative leadership and pro-Brexit voters, many of whom maintain that Europe needs the U.K. as much as the U.K. needs the EU, and seem to believe that Britain can continue to enjoy the key benefits of the single market without the constraints.

[cool_hand]

No, we need to LEAVE the single market.

[Sheeple Splinter]

1 hour ago, MrMonkey said:

I never said that the legal challenges are not there to delay Brexit - just that regardless of the reasons for them due process should be followed. The reason for the case is unimportant. What is important is that things are done properly to ensure that the process is legitimate, and has the correct Parliamentary scrutiny (which is one of the things that the Leave campaign told us was important).

The referendum was a poorly planned mess which was never designed to deal with a vote to leave the EU. There was no plan for Brexit. The referendum was advisory (hence why Parliament needs to be involved - if you want to blame somebody then David Cameron is your man). And clearly nobody even started getting proper legal advice on the complexities of leaving until we got a new PM. It is daft to suggest that "A hard Brexit should absolutely be our position". Says who? Not the 52% who voted to leave the EU. The nature of the exit deal was never put to the public. Simply leaving the EU without significant notice would have economic, political and social consequences. I expect that some of these would be quite severe. And, as is common with economic unrest, it is the poor and the vulnerable who would suffer the most.

It is ironic that, on a forum where so much discussion is about the impacts of short-sighted government policy for political gain at the expense of social benefit, there is support for the Government to act without proper scrutiny and in such a way that would serve the political desires of the Government over the needs of the country. A quick Brexit would make Theresa May look powerful. But I have no confidence that it would actually make things better for the UK. For example, what would happen to UK businesses trading with the EU if they were told that they have three months to adapt to this change?

 

Where was the Parliamentary scrutiny during the referendum bill and the campaign? Cameron and his team made it clear to the electorate that it was Remain or Leave and that the people will decide. He also said he would invoke A50 and get the best deal for the country... Why did none of the MP's, from either side challenge the advisory/binding status, and/or add that a further referendum would be held to vote on the Brexit plan? Is there any other conclusion other than deception and/or incompetence?

I hope UK Parliamentary reform features on at least one manifesto for next GE...

As you say:

Quote

 We are going to leave the EU. Lets just make sure that we do it properly and do not overly damage our economic and political ties to the rest of the world in the process. 

 

[thecrashingisles]

18 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Is there any other conclusion other than deception and/or incompetence?

No-one, including Farage, Johnson or Gove really thought, expected (or even wanted) Leave to win.  The Leavers were hoping for a narrow Remain win that would keep the issue alive and register a protest, and the Remainers were hoping for a convincing win that would put the issue to bed.

[GrizzlyDave]

3 hours ago, MrMonkey said:

I never said that the legal challenges are not there to delay Brexit - just that regardless of the reasons for them due process should be followed. The reason for the case is unimportant. What is important is that things are done properly to ensure that the process is legitimate, and has the correct Parliamentary scrutiny (which is one of the things that the Leave campaign told us was important).

The referendum was a poorly planned mess which was never designed to deal with a vote to leave the EU. There was no plan for Brexit. The referendum was advisory (hence why Parliament needs to be involved - if you want to blame somebody then David Cameron is your man). And clearly nobody even started getting proper legal advice on the complexities of leaving until we got a new PM. It is daft to suggest that "A hard Brexit should absolutely be our position". Says who? Not the 52% who voted to leave the EU. The nature of the exit deal was never put to the public. Simply leaving the EU without significant notice would have economic, political and social consequences. I expect that some of these would be quite severe. And, as is common with economic unrest, it is the poor and the vulnerable who would suffer the most.

It is ironic that, on a forum where so much discussion is about the impacts of short-sighted government policy for political gain at the expense of social benefit, there is support for the Government to act without proper scrutiny and in such a way that would serve the political desires of the Government over the needs of the country. A quick Brexit would make Theresa May look powerful. But I have no confidence that it would actually make things better for the UK. For example, what would happen to UK businesses trading with the EU if they were told that they have three months to adapt to this change?

We are going to leave the EU. Lets just make sure that we do it properly and do not overly damage our economic and political ties to the rest of the world in the process.

The position of staying in the EU is clear. The position of leaving the EU is also clear.

We voted to live in the big brother house, or outside the big brother house. We chose to live outside the house. Now it's a case of whether we want a set of our own keys to use the shower and washing machine, in exchange for filling the fridge with beer and snacks. Or if we just want to be let in for a small fee. But what we do not want is 20 Lithuanians sleeping on our sofa in our new home, in exchange for our ability to wash our pants.

Cameron as the PM should have had a rudimentary contingency plan for the leave win. I do blame him entirely for that poor leadership.

Edited November 29, 2016 by GrizzlyDave

[MrMonkey]

20 minutes ago, cool_hand said:

MrMonkey: can you provide evidence for your doom gloom predictions? You sound just like the Osbourne and Carney who were predicting an immediate recession if we voted to leave - it never materialized. We were told that business would not invest in the UK, yet we've seen the complete opposite (Google, Facebook, Nissan). You miss the whole point about leaving the EU, it's a declining market, our future is with the rest of the world. And I toally disagree with your assumptions that the poor will be the worst hit - IMO the opposite is true. But as I say perhaps you can provide some evidence for your predictions? Weasel words indeed.

Well, the economic forecasts (as unreliable as this science is) indicates that there will be an economic slowdown and rise in Government borrowing as a result of the decision to leave the EU. Prior to the referendum, the expectation was that a leave vote would see Article 50 being triggered the same day and the process for leaving the EU beginning. As such, as soon as it was clear that the Leave side had won the stock markets fell, the pound dropped, and the metrics behaved as you would expect at the start of a recession. But then it became clear that Article 50 was not going to happen for a while, and the BoE released funds to calm the markets. Neither of these were previously expected, and they have (IMO) been the driver for the positive financial news of the last few months.

In regards to those most affected, the EU does support deprived communities in the UK. Will the Government match this funding? I have not heard any assurances that Cornwall or Wales will be getting the funding that they currently receive. And we have already heard murmurs from the Government about repealing the Working Time Directive and other employment laws. Who benefits the most from these rules? The people on low wages in manual jobs, or the executives paid bonuses looking to make more savings in their businesses?

As for the accusations of 'weasel words', if that is all you can accuse me of then feel free to do so. I am not of the view that we should be circumventing the law for the sake of convenience. Nobody benefits if we end up with a poor exit from the EU, and these processes will ensure that, although it may take longer, it will be a better result for it.

[thecrashingisles]

5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

We voted to live in the big brother house, or outside the big brother house. We chose to live outside the house. Now it's a case of whether we want a set of our own keys to use the shower and washing machine, in exchange for filling the fridge with beer and snacks. Or if we just want to be let in for a small fee.

Interesting analogy and revealing that all of your move out options involve going back home when it suits.

Edited November 29, 2016 by thecrashingisles