Judges BLOCK BREXIT

[#1]

Three "senior" judges, have blocked the PM from starting to sort ou the BREXIT  with Article 50...

Well, they would... wouldn`t they... establishment... !.. gotta show the minions who is boss.... even though many of the minions were conservative voters who voted to leave...

perhaps there is some "vested interest"   here... as the DM reports...

The judges who blocked Brexit: One founded a EUROPEAN law group while another charged the taxpayer m...

[#2]

So much for Judges being independent.

A bunch of Blockheads attempting to block Britexit.

[#3]

So i ask myself ........

what was the point in the whole voting in or out ............. what a waste of money and time!

[#4]

Three minions overrule millions, and that folks is democracy in actions. Shameful, utterly shameful. Heads on spikes time.

[#5]

It might be worth while reading another view on this. I've not read the original due to the source.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

[#6]

from that link

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

That of course is complete rubbish as the EU have already said that they won't start negotiations unless and until Article 50 is triggered

[#7]

@Oldjim  Might be worth you reading today's posts in your original thread https://community.plus.net/t5/General-Chat/Post-Brexit-Trade-Deal-with-EU/td-p/1379478, particularly posts 18 and 25.

As far as I can see whichever way the appeal goes it will provide a "safety valve" in case the government finds it impossible to come up with a set of working agreements within the two year deadline. If MPs have to debate it, then this should provide a quality-check on what the government proposes to do, if Article 50 is reversible then there is a get-out if it all goes pear-shaped.

@shutter  "Three "senior" judges, have blocked the PM from starting to sort ou the BREXIT  with Article 50..."

There is no reason why Brexit negotiations can't continue as now. 

[#8]

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/11/calm-down-dears-article-50-is-still-going-to-ha...

[#9]

@PeterLoftus  Exactly! No reason to get hot under the collar, not yet anyway!

[#10]

---

@Oldjim wrote:

from that link

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

That of course is complete rubbish as the EU have already said that they won't start negotiations unless and until Article 50 is triggered

---

and the germans have told Merkel to get us to stay at all costs in the last couple of days.

The judge ruling was no great surprise, we had a pro EU leader resign and leave the door open for another pro EU leader to take his place. She's since been seen hanging out with Cameron in his constituency which is clearly a sign of underhand tactics regarding the whole thing and how to stitch it up.

May doesn't want to leave the EU. The EU doesn't want us to leave. The Scots and Irish don't want us to leave (yet they don't want the problems that we english have to endure) even BoJo decided after the vote that we didn't need to cut immigration - a key part of his arguement for leaving.

So.. we've been done. It won't be long now until rioting starts because you can't give people a vote and then ignore the results in favour of dictatorship. People in this country are being pushed harder, squeezed harder and having retirements postponed. Something will snap and it's likely to be the good will of the nation.

[#11]

I thought the foolish Britexiteers wanted to return power to parliament?

They should be pleased that we won't get ruled by May's coterie.

[#12]

Some observations:

• Parliament is the supreme lawmaker in the UK

Parliamentary sovereignty  is a concept in the constitutional law that holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation, and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, even a constitution) or by precedent.  

Many for years have considered that the executive, aka the government  has accrued to itself too much power, so  vitiating principles of the constitution.

• Ours is a representative democracy

Edmund Burke's opinion stated, that part of the duty of a representative was not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but also to use their own judgement in the exercise of their powers,even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters.

In other words, our MPs are permitted to use their personal judgements, which were they delegates, as some seem to think they are, would not be able to use

• The Rule of Law

This is the idea that all laws and government actions conform to principles. These principles include equal application of the law: everyone is equal before the law and no person is above the law, including those in power. Another is that no person is punishable in body or goods without a breach of the law: as held in Entick v Carrington, persons are free to do anything, unless the law says otherwise; thus, no punishment without a clear breach of the law.

It puzzles and disturbs me, that the proponents of our exit from the EU appear so keen, as evidenced by some opinions expressed, to set aside any or all of the benefits of the constitution for one issue.

In my opinion both totalitarian and direct plebiscitary rule have within them great dangers for any nation’s freedom.

Why on God’s earth should any freedom lover want that! 

[#13]

@Luzern  Having read that gobbledegook a couple of times, I am still none the wiser as to what you are trying to put across... in much the same way, as the laws of this land are written..

on the one hand.... we, the people, were asked ... by the government. to vote on a question as to whether we should leave or stay.

The majority vote was to leave...

Now... according one part of one sentence in your gobbledegook, that means WE, the people have decided, and that government, said ( before the vote was taken and the result confirmed)  they will abide by the decision... 

some smart pleb has decided to go to three judges, and tried to get this decision overturned, due to some supposed legal mumbo jumbo that Parliament. must be the final decider.   ( never mind the fact that parliament had already stated, that they will abide by the result, prior to the vote ).

which then brings into play the second part of the same sentence, previously referred to above, that states that, notwithstanding, the wishes of the people, ... their elected representatives (M.P.) have the right to dismiss the wishes of those that voted them into a job, and to take matters into their own hands, and make an opposite decision , if they themselves, do not agree with the majority decision taken by those that voted him into the job.

SO.... on the one hand... we have millions of people saying OUT... and then three highly paid, self centred, people say... NO not yet...  it`s up to the M.P.`s to decide on what THEY personally think best for those millions of people who already told them  what they think..

[#14]

We were asked if we wanted to leave the EU.

We weren't asked if wanted to leave the single market.

[#15]

---

@Luzern wrote:

Some observations:

• Parliament is the supreme lawmaker in the UK

---

Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty EU Law has supremacy over UK Law.  The UK public were given no chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, it was imposed on us by the Labour Government.