I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

We wouldn't postal vote if we had to use a stamp.

--
Every time I sink ten pints, I turn into a woman. I start talking ******** and can't drive.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

We wouldn't postal vote if we had to use a stamp.

Even you lot should be able to work out how to allow that to
not require a stamp, if someone was actually stupid enough
to lend you lot a seeing eye dog and a white cane, again.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:35:53 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

We wouldn't postal vote if we had to use a stamp.

Even you lot should be able to work out how to allow that to
not require a stamp, if someone was actually stupid enough
to lend you lot a seeing eye dog and a white cane, again.

It doesn't need a stamp, I said IF it required one we wouldn't bother.

--
It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence the
result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and if the
government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a significant
majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin) to
Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or that
of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the public's views
are superseded by the MPs' views.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wanted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisory to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allowed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.
We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

On 03/11/2016 14:01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Minchin
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so,
and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative)
MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an
interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are
not legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views
of the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.


So no legal obligation then.

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:14:06 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:01, Tim Streater wrote:
snip

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.


So no legal obligation then.

Nope. They asked the country what they *thought* and the county came
back close to 50:50. Hardly a resounding indication that the 'country'
wanted one thing or the other and hardly surprising considering the
lack of real information, schedule or plan.

So what we have since found out is that many of the fanatics here
didn't vote for us the simply 'Leave the EU', they had other agenda
(like bringing the whole EU down).

I wonder how many of those who voted leave because of 'immigration who
have since learned just what little difference it will make because of
how much the UK relies on immigrant workers.

The only people who try to defend the fact that the referendum was
(actually / legally) just an opinion poll (irrespective of what anyone
'promised' as we know such promises are bs) just want it to carry on
and everyone to keep quiet because they realise just how bogus the
whole this is.

Democracy is all about discussing all avenues (old and new) and we
shouldn't carry on marching into the unknown if it's anything other
than 100% positive the outcome will also be positive for the majority.

Cheers, T i m

In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.

you aren't being ruled by judges. The judges said that even the Prime
Minister has to follw the law.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 03/11/2016 19:52, bert wrote:
In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.

So parliament needs to change the law, which is what the judges have
said. Its the way the UK has done stuff for a long time and you want to
change it without consulting the rest of us.

in 1536167 20161103 195230 bert wrote:
In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.

Get a grip, Bert. Whatever the Daily Mail said, you are not being ruled by
judges. They were asked to clarify the law as it stands and that's what they did.

In article , pamela
writes
On 19:52 3 Nov 2016, bert wrote:

In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a
referendum, and that the govt would implement the people's
decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now
get it good and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to
parliament every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that
sovereignty back to the people and the people have spoken. I
prefer this system to being ruled by judges.

Parliament didn't do anything. The government arranged the
referendum and it doesn't have the right to transfer Parliament's
sovereignity.

Parliament debated and voted on the proposal to a hold the referendum
and a huge majority of MPs voted in favour, so it wasn't the government
that transferred sovereignty it was parliament.
This was also true for the 1975 EU referendum. Same rules apply.

--
bert

On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me that
whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this regard would be
implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not within their
competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK law.
They may change that law if needed but until they do they must obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking for, the UK
parliament deciding what happens even if it takes a court order to make
them do it.

In article . com,
lid writes
On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me that
whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this regard would be
implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not within their
competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK law.
They may change that law if needed but until they do they must obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking for, the UK
parliament deciding what happens even if it takes a court order to make
them do it.
Even now remainers continue to lie.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 18:14 3 Nov 2016, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a
referendum, and that the govt would implement the people's
decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now
get it good and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me
that whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this
regard would be implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not
within their competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK law.
They may change that law if needed but until they do they must
obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking for,
the UK parliament deciding what happens even if it takes a court
order to make them do it.

The people are sovereign. Parliament is here to serve us. They are not
our masters.
If MPs are not happy with the way the government is conducting business
they can always call a vote of no confidence and so cause a general
election.
The wild exuberence of jubilant Brexiteers had led them to think
they could ram through some extremist version of Brexit decided by
covert committees without further consultation.

You seem to overlook the fact that there is another party involved in
these discussions - the representatives of the EU who will have their
own agenda on what deal they are prepared to accept. The HOC can debate
all it likes about what our negotiating position but what if the EU
simply say no. Do we have to go back to parliament and have another
debate? And after 2 years the EU can simply refuse an extension and
we're out on WTO terms.
Luckily we still have Parliamentary sovereignity in Blighty where
these matters are debated for all to see and we also have the rule
of law to make sure these correct procedures are followed.
Which law limits the use of the royal prerogative in this situation?
--
bert

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it
good and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me that
whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this regard would be
implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

You expect everything a government promise to actually happen, do you?
Which planet have you been on up until now?

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not within their
competence.

Ah. Right. One of those who wanted sovereignty - but only their own
version of it.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 03/11/16 17:36, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

in 1536247 20161104 041526 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/11/16 17:36, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?

No 'supposed' about it, if it was legally binding it would have said so.
It didn't.

In article ,
lid says...
The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?



It wasn't a legally binding referendum because the UK
constitution contains no such concept.

You may have heard of the phrase "Parliament is
sovereign".

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 17:39:55 UTC, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

No it wasn't.
It said on the £9m leaflet that the government will implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is.

On 04/11/2016 08:06, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 17:39:55 UTC, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

No it wasn't.
It said on the £9m leaflet that the government will implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is.


So they got it wrong and they can legally do so.
The PM has resigned so now parliament will have to clean up the mess and
they can only do that by passing a bill to do so.
Its sovereignty as we know it and have known it for a long time.
Its what a large portion of brexiteers voted for so they should be happy.
The rest that are just trying to undermine the EU or get rid of
immigrants will have to wait and see. Not that either will happen if we
leave anyway.

"NY" wrote in message
...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin) to Leave but a
majority of MPs vote Remain?

According to the unwritten constitution, the will of Parliament, expressed as the Queen
in
Parliament has the final word in all such matters. The public at large have no say.

Again anyone making an election pledge, as David Cameron is claimed to have
done promising anything different is simply exceeding his powers. Not that
Cameron ever anticipated he'd find himself in such a position in the first
place.

A lot of nonsense had been spouted about the PM using the Royal Prerogative
to by-pass Parliament and directly implementing "the will of the people".
However as the judgement points out, the Royal Prerogative is only used
when its not practicable to recall parliament - to declare war at short notice
etc not as a means of bypassing Parliament when there's every opportunity
for Parliament to discuss the matter in hand. It's there in paragraph 24 in the
judgement which as its a PDF is impossible to copy and paste
directly

The Crown Prerogative is "only available for a case not covered by statute"

The Pdf of the judgement

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...u-20161103.pdf

And it seems unlikely that any appeal by the Govt can over turn this "unfortunate"
reality.

Just as I pointed out ad nauseam previously that article 50 requires any country
wishing to invoke article 50, to take any such decision inn accordance with its
own Constitution. Which in the UK is not simply the as the result of an
"advisory referendum". So any article 50 declaration made on that basis
can be challenged in the European Court as well.

Not that this will end the uncertainty which will be among the most damaging
aspects of this scenario. Something that could last for years.



michael adams

....

In article , Moron Watch
writes

"NY" wrote in message
...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margin) to Leave but a
majority of MPs vote Remain?

According to the unwritten constitution, the will of Parliament,
expressed as the Queen
in
Parliament has the final word in all such matters. The public at large
have no say.

Again anyone making an election pledge, as David Cameron is claimed to have
done promising anything different is simply exceeding his powers. Not that
Cameron ever anticipated he'd find himself in such a position in the first
place.

A lot of nonsense had been spouted about the PM using the Royal Prerogative
to by-pass Parliament and directly implementing "the will of the people".
However as the judgement points out, the Royal Prerogative is only used
when its not practicable to recall parliament - to declare war at short notice
etc not as a means of bypassing Parliament when there's every opportunity
for Parliament to discuss the matter in hand. It's there in paragraph 24 in the
judgement which as its a PDF is impossible to copy and paste
directly

The Crown Prerogative is "only available for a case not covered by statute"

The Pdf of the judgement

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...dgment-r-mille
r-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

And it seems unlikely that any appeal by the Govt can over turn this
"unfortunate"
reality.

Just as I pointed out ad nauseam previously that article 50 requires
any country
wishing to invoke article 50, to take any such decision inn accordance with its
own Constitution. Which in the UK is not simply the as the result of an
"advisory referendum". So any article 50 declaration made on that basis
can be challenged in the European Court as well.

Not that this will end the uncertainty which will be among the most damaging
aspects of this scenario. Something that could last for years.



michael adams

...


The judiciary in Northern Ireland has taken the exactly opposite view
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message news


The judiciary in Northern Ireland has taken the exactly opposite view

If you read the judgement you'll see they pointed out where the
NI Court were wrong. As they failed to acknowledge what both
sides in this case do acknowledge, that invoking Article 50 will
directly affect UK Law.

They made the further point that the Royal Perogative cannnot be
used to remove rights or freedoms currently enjoyed by UK citizens.
A simple example would be the present right of UK citizens to travel
freely within the EU. Such rights or freedoms can only be removed by
an Act of Parliament, not by a PM invoking article 50. At least short
of the Declaration of a State of Emergency.

Anyone reading the judgement might rightly question how anyone
ever thought the Govt had a hope of winning.

Their whole case, such as it was, seemed to revolve around the
fact that because Parliament hadn't specifically passed a law
preventing them from by-passing Parliament in this way, then
they could just do it.







--
bert

NY wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence the
result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and if the
government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a significant
majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin) to
Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or that
of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the public's views
are superseded by the MPs' views.


That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that Parliament is
sovereign and can overrule either the Government, the Courts or a
referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless immediately
followed by a general election.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 11:10 5 Nov 2016, Roger Hayter wrote:

That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that
Parliament is sovereign and can overrule either the Government,
the Courts or a referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless
immediately followed by a general election.

Some Brexiteers were so jubilant that they worked themselves up into
a frenzy in which they believed all their demands were now going to
be met - no matter how irrational, unlawful or unconstitutional.

Mainly because of the outright lies or implied 'benefits' from the likes
of Farage. A vast number of UKIP supporters after being wound up by him
believed all EU immigrants would be deported soon after the referendum.
As that is exactly what they wanted - and he was very careful never to
actually say this wouldn't happen.

They're being brought back to earth.

Anyone else could see it had all got a bit out of hand and needed a
reality check.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 11:10 5 Nov 2016, Roger Hayter wrote:

That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that
Parliament is sovereign and can overrule either the Government,
the Courts or a referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless
immediately followed by a general election.

Some Brexiteers were so jubilant that they worked themselves up into
a frenzy in which they believed all their demands were now going to
be met - no matter how irrational, unlawful or unconstitutional.

Mainly because of the outright lies or implied 'benefits' from the likes
of Farage. A vast number of UKIP supporters after being wound up by him
believed all EU immigrants would be deported soon after the referendum.
As that is exactly what they wanted - and he was very careful never to
actually say this wouldn't happen.
Because the EU will not commit to not repatriating UK citizens currently
in the EU even though there is an international convention on acquired
rights. (Franc hasn't signed up to it) Their excuse is "no negotiation
before A50 is invoked" causing much uncertainty to EU citizens, but they
don't give a s*** about that because they can't be voted out.


They're being brought back to earth.

Anyone else could see it had all got a bit out of hand and needed a
reality check.


--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 11:10 5 Nov 2016, Roger Hayter wrote:

That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that
Parliament is sovereign and can overrule either the Government,
the Courts or a referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless
immediately followed by a general election.

Some Brexiteers were so jubilant that they worked themselves up into
a frenzy in which they believed all their demands were now going to
be met - no matter how irrational, unlawful or unconstitutional.

Usual ridiculous remainer exaggeration
They're being brought back to earth.

Anyone else could see it had all got a bit out of hand and needed a
reality check.

--
bert

On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?

In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

you obviously don't know the meaning of "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

you obviously don't know the meaning of "advisory".

Well do please explain it.
--
bert

On 03/11/2016 19:56, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

That's all it was.

in 1536170 20161103 195654 bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

Look up "advisory" in a dictionary and get back to us.