Well, if I ran an organisation with that slim majority of numebrs to make a
far reaching change I'd not be very good at drafting constititutions. I'm
not saying that I agree or disagree with the sentiments of what the law
says, I'm just saying that it seems very strange to me that a whole country
can be given a change as major as this which a charity, for example would
need to go deeper into before implimenting it.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Martin Howe QC (Chairman, Lawyers for Britain) has posted this (and
there was a letter in the Times with broadly the same text):

Mishcon's proposed challenge is devoid of all legal merit. As a matter
of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on
European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No Act or other
parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European
Union Act 2011, Parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval
before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European
treaties, but has notably not extended any such restrictions to Article
50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore
quite hopeless.

As a matter of constitutional and political authority, the decision of
the British people in a national referendum authorised by Act of
Parliament not merely permits but mandates the giving of notice,
without the need for any vote by Parliament. It is deeply objectionable
but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted
contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics of this kind in an
attempt to frustrate the democratic decision of the British people.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly
strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

On 06/07/16 10:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, if I ran an organisation with that slim majority of numebrs to make a
far reaching change I'd not be very good at drafting constititutions. I'm
not saying that I agree or disagree with the sentiments of what the law
says, I'm just saying that it seems very strange to me that a whole country
can be given a change as major as this which a charity, for example would
need to go deeper into before implimenting it.
Brian

The original decision to join was slipped through by a government with a
slender majority that had been elected on a different ticket.

And was arguably unconstitutional anyway.

Maastricht? Legal?

"a citizens charge of treason was taken out against them by Norris
McWhirter, of Guinness Book of Records fame. This was successful in the
magistrates court, but the case then had to go to a higher court. At
this point the *Attorney General in the Conservative government
exercised his power to take over any private citizens right to go to
law*, and having replaced Norris McWhirter, he *failed to take it any
further*, thus ending the treason procedure against Douglas Hurd and
Francis Maude."

We have been conned cajoled and whipped into joining the EU, and are now
being frightened, having left it, by a deliberate campaign to 'punish
Britain'


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

Brian Gaff wrote

Well, if I ran an organisation with that slim majority of numebrs to make
a far reaching change I'd not be very good at drafting constititutions.

We arent talking about a constitution.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the sentiments of what the
law says, I'm just saying that it seems very strange to me that a whole
country can be given a change as major as this which a charity, for
example would need to go deeper into before implimenting it.

Politics of a country can't be done the way a charity is done.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Martin Howe QC (Chairman, Lawyers for Britain) has posted this (and
there was a letter in the Times with broadly the same text):

Mishcon's proposed challenge is devoid of all legal merit. As a matter
of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on
European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No Act or other
parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European
Union Act 2011, Parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval
before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European
treaties, but has notably not extended any such restrictions to Article
50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore
quite hopeless.

As a matter of constitutional and political authority, the decision of
the British people in a national referendum authorised by Act of
Parliament not merely permits but mandates the giving of notice,
without the need for any vote by Parliament. It is deeply objectionable
but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted
contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics of this kind in an
attempt to frustrate the democratic decision of the British people.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly
strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)