Politics So...Europe then?

[Job]

Now that it has been revealed the chief judge of the supreme court is a pro EU legal campaigner, the impartiality of the court is being called into doubt...which is as bad as it gets.

 

[bainteor]

Now that it has been revealed the chief judge of the supreme court is a pro EU legal campaigner, the impartiality of the court is being called into doubt...which is as bad as it gets.

And some people wonder why many of us think the British are fools ...

 

[caLLous]

You've said goodbye a few times, can you not just go away?

 

[throdgrain]

And some people wonder why many of us think the British are fools ...

And we don't even know (or care) who you are

 

[gohan]

I do! I do! he's and old member that's been banned about 30 times on alt accounts and used to go on about how amazing he was in Thidranki on his bonedancer (daoc think; we cared as much then as you do now) he is the sworn enemy of thugs (or maybe it's an elaborate prank and he is thugs *Raven conspiracy*) and I'm fairly sure he's French.

 

[caLLous]

I'm fairly sure he's French.

You take that back.

 

[gohan]

You take that back.

I fear it's truth!!

 

[bainteor]

You've said goodbye a few times, can you not just go away?

My posts in this thread have been on-topic, so your attempting to troll me does not make you look favourable. Once again, you demonstrate the profound hypocrisy that members of these forums posses.

 

[caLLous]

Your posts in this thread haven't been on-topic in the slightest. You're basically taking the piss out of "the British" in both.

 

[Bodhi]

My posts in this thread have been on-topic, so your attempting to troll me does not make you look favourable. Once again, you demonstrate the profound hypocrisy that members of these forums posses.

You see, I recognise the words you are using, but used in the combination above, I don't have a fucking clue what you're on about.

You don't work in Marketing do you?

 

[Gwadien]

@bainteor why don't you make a new alias. Come back and not act like youre superior to everyone here and then perhaps you'll be accepted back, I mean we put up with @Scouse even though he really does think he's the don.

 

[Tom]

Someone change his title from "one of Freddy's beloved" to "cunt" please.

 

[Job]

What I don't understand is , if this woman hadn't gone to court, this fundamental point of law would have just been ignored or overlooked?
Surely someone should have all ready pointed it out.
What other huge holes are there in our system that only get spotted by paying large sums of money to uncover.

 

[Raven]

Welcome to how law works. As it is an unprecedented occurrence there is no case law to go by, we are all basically barrelling along in the dark until someone makes a legal decision. Pretty much every civil law is decided this way, often later challenged and altered, at which point the law is changed.

I do not really know the ins and outs of it but the referendum was not legally binding and for all intents and purposes might as well have been a BBC poll. All the challenge said was that regardless of the outcome of the vote, ultimately any decision to leave must be made by MPs, MPs in our democracy make decisions by voting one way or the other.

 

[Scouse]

Welcome to how law works. As it is an unprecedented occurrence there is no case law to go by

Case law isn't the only aspect to British law Raven and it isn't particularly applicable here.

The hilarious irony about this is that this ruling was about Parliamentary Sovreignity - the very thing Brexiter's harped on about desparately wanting. And the court found in favour of Parliament.

Which, of course, is correct - as Brexit changes UK law in an unprecedented fashion. An Act Of Parliament - the European Communities Act of 1972 - was required for the massive change in UK law that took us into the EU. Theresa May wants to bypass Parliamentary Sovreignity and take us out without consulting Parliament.


So, what's it to be Brexiters? Parliamentary Sovreignity only when it's convenient? Happy with Theresa May to be a de-facto dictator?

This debacle makes the EU look like a much more robust form of democracy than old Blighty eh?

 

[DaGaffer]

Now that it has been revealed the chief judge of the supreme court is a pro EU legal campaigner, the impartiality of the court is being called into doubt...which is as bad as it gets.

Which is why you have three judges. next!

 

[Scouse]

Aye.

On the plus side the pound jumped massively. But is still shit.

 

[DaGaffer]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about; the will of Parliament was supposedly the point of Brexit, and given that 61% of MPs have a majority of leave voters in their constituencies, its really unlikely they'll vote their conscience, so Brexit isn't going to go away. Surely the leavers want "taking back our sovereignty" to actually mean just that rather than just letting 3 people decide what kind of Brexit the British people are going to get?

 

[Scouse]

That.


Edit: The fuss is about idiots not knowing what they voted for, why they voted that way or them having an understanding of how things are supposed to work. So when they get what they supposedly want, they cry foul.

 

[Job]

The three judges slow clapped Goves brexit speech.
How the living fuck where they put on this case.

 

[Exioce]

June 24th the country seriously thought that Michael Gove and Sarah Vine were in charge of coming up with a new fag packet constitution.
October brought us news of the Great Repeal Bill, where all existing EU law would at a stroke be converted into UK law, subject to the Tory cabinet excising any bits they didn't like.

Farcical. Finally some adults have stepped in.

 

[Scouse]

The three judges slow clapped Goves brexit speech.
How the living fuck where they put on this case.

Link.

 

[Tom]

Link.

Take a wild guess where it'll link to.

 

[Tom]

BTW, this isn't Job's link. Unsurprisingly.

Why the Daily Mail is wrong about the judiciary - The Lawyer | Legal News and Jobs | Advancing the business of law

 

[Embattle]

Littlejohn in a rage We can't let Brexit be derailed by a City slicker and a Brazilian crimper | Daily Mail Online

 

[Raven]

You couldn't make it up.

Hopefully he has a heart attack.

 

[Bodhi]

Only issue I can see with the judgement is that, in order for Parliament to vote on it, they have to discuss it first. Not that that's too much of an issue, but it does mean when we enter negotiations with Brussels they will know exactly what we're after, not the best opening position to be in.

Other than that it's overall a good thing, it legitimises Brexit, and shows up more bullshit we were fed in the Referendum - the "We will implement whatever you decide" that we spent 9 Million getting printed on some leaflets.

 

[DaGaffer]

Only issue I can see with the judgement is that, in order for Parliament to vote on it, they have to discuss it first. Not that that's too much of an issue, but it does mean when we enter negotiations with Brussels they will know exactly what we're after, not the best opening position to be in.

Other than that it's overall a good thing, it legitimises Brexit, and shows up more bullshit we were fed in the Referendum - the "We will implement whatever you decide" that we spent 9 Million getting printed on some leaflets.

The government can come to Parliament with options, and it doesn't mean you have to have full sittings; select committees can be set up to deal with different aspects of the deal (in fact this will have to happen).

As for "we will implement what you decide" - there's a fuckton of leeway in that; so long as "leaving the EU" actually happens the will of the people is satisfied, but the flavours of Brexit we end up with is still the bit that's up for grabs and that's properly the prerogative of Parliament. Its also important to note that things like free movement etc weren't explicit referendum questions; its still in Parliament's control to give the UK a chance of a Brexit with minimal damage.

 

[Ormorof]

The government can always appeal to the European court...

 

[caLLous]