keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 2,545
|
Post by keitha on Aug 28, 2024 9:08:39 GMT
Well, we plebs do not have the luxury to buy "justice" like Trump or Lynch. Pretty sure there are a number of of people have been "jailed" for a crime they never committed, still awaiting "proper" compensation from miscarriage of the current justice system.
So, what about the human rights for those people? Did they have fair trial? Any human rights for fair compensation?
or indeed to attempt to but your own wishes above the majority a la Gina miller
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,601
Likes: 5,020
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 28, 2024 9:20:51 GMT
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,213
Likes: 11,404
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 28, 2024 10:39:44 GMT
Not correct ... illegal & unlawful have different meanings. Illegal means breaking a specific defined law ... generally a criminal act ... unlawful means not in line with the interpretation of the law or wider criteria by the Court. The government was found to have acted unlawfully in that the lack of a vote & prorogation were determined to be outside the constitutional norms. It didnt break the law as there is no specific law.
|
|
|
Trump
Aug 28, 2024 12:19:16 GMT
Post by overthehill on Aug 28, 2024 12:19:16 GMT
You would think there must something that would finally finish off this criminal and creep and make the election a landslide. Not yet apparently.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 2,545
|
Post by keitha on Aug 28, 2024 16:41:15 GMT
the Government sent every household a leaflet ( urging remain ) this leaflet said the Government will implement the result The result was a vote for leave, Simply therefore the Government could and should have implemented it without letting MPs ( who were mostly remoaners ) vote. Ms Miller didn't like the result and was doing anything she could to stop Brexit, IMHO this was far more serious than M25 protests by just stop oil etc, she was trying to interfere with the democratic process and as such she should have been charged with treason. bit of course the left wing element on here will disagree because they didn't want Brexit and still to this day can't accept it, Many of these same people who moan that it was a close vote or that only 37% of the electorate voted leave don't mention that only 20% of the electorate voted Labour at the last election
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,213
Likes: 11,404
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 28, 2024 17:01:08 GMT
the Government sent every household a leaflet ( urging remain ) this leaflet said the Government will implement the result The result was a vote for leave, Simply therefore the Government could and should have implemented it without letting MPs ( who were mostly remoaners ) vote. Ms Miller didn't like the result and was doing anything she could to stop Brexit, IMHO this was far more serious than M25 protests by just stop oil etc, she was trying to interfere with the democratic process and as such she should have been charged with treason. bit of course the left wing element on here will disagree because they didn't want Brexit and still to this day can't accept it, Many of these same people who moan that it was a close vote or that only 37% of the electorate voted leave don't mention that only 20% of the electorate voted Labour at the last election Parliament is sovereign, the govt only has the power delegated to it by Parliament. The question tried by the Miller case was whether the govt had the power to enact Brexit or whether that still lay with Parliament. The Courts determined the later xo whatever the govt said it wasnt actually within its power. The referendum result was to leave the European Union ... that is quite narrow in its strictest form but was very broadly interpreted across the political spectrum
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,422
Likes: 2,893
|
Trump
Aug 28, 2024 17:02:00 GMT
Post by michaelc on Aug 28, 2024 17:02:00 GMT
the Government sent every household a leaflet ( urging remain ) this leaflet said the Government will implement the resultThe result was a vote for leave, Simply therefore the Government could and should have implemented it without letting MPs ( who were mostly remoaners ) vote. Ms Miller didn't like the result and was doing anything she could to stop Brexit, IMHO this was far more serious than M25 protests by just stop oil etc, she was trying to interfere with the democratic process and as such she should have been charged with treason. bit of course the left wing element on here will disagree because they didn't want Brexit and still to this day can't accept it, Many of these same people who moan that it was a close vote or that only 37% of the electorate voted leave don't mention that only 20% of the electorate voted Labour at the last election They will tell you now it was an "advisory" vote or some other anti-democratic BS. I voted Leave and now wish we hadn't left. However, I would fight tooth and nail for the rights of the people that I now disagree with (Leavers) to have their say in a referendum respected. It is disgusting that so many people have put their own opinions above that of the democratic system itself. I would certainly support any investigation into anyone who has wilfully attempted to subvert democracy.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 2,545
|
Post by keitha on Aug 28, 2024 17:28:41 GMT
the Government sent every household a leaflet ( urging remain ) this leaflet said the Government will implement the result The result was a vote for leave, Simply therefore the Government could and should have implemented it without letting MPs ( who were mostly remoaners ) vote. Ms Miller didn't like the result and was doing anything she could to stop Brexit, IMHO this was far more serious than M25 protests by just stop oil etc, she was trying to interfere with the democratic process and as such she should have been charged with treason. bit of course the left wing element on here will disagree because they didn't want Brexit and still to this day can't accept it, Many of these same people who moan that it was a close vote or that only 37% of the electorate voted leave don't mention that only 20% of the electorate voted Labour at the last election Parliament is sovereign, the govt only has the power delegated to it by Parliament. The question tried by the Miller case was whether the govt had the power to enact Brexit or whether that still lay with Parliament. The Courts determined the later xo whatever the govt said it wasnt actually within its power. The referendum result was to leave the European Union ... that is quite narrow in its strictest form but was very broadly interpreted across the political spectrum the Ms Miller et al should have challenged before the vote took place and not after, ditto the "People's Vote" nonsense the people voted and they voted leave, respect the result and get on with it
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Aug 28, 2024 17:54:08 GMT
Parliament is sovereign, the govt only has the power delegated to it by Parliament. The question tried by the Miller case was whether the govt had the power to enact Brexit or whether that still lay with Parliament. The Courts determined the later xo whatever the govt said it wasnt actually within its power. The referendum result was to leave the European Union ... that is quite narrow in its strictest form but was very broadly interpreted across the political spectrum the Ms Miller et al should have challenged before the vote took place and not after, ditto the "People's Vote" nonsense the people voted and they voted leave, respect the result and get on with it So you think that nobody should have the right to challenge something they consider to have been conducted unlawfully / criminally / unconstitutionally? Really?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 2,545
|
Trump
Aug 28, 2024 18:23:42 GMT
jo likes this
Post by keitha on Aug 28, 2024 18:23:42 GMT
the Ms Miller et al should have challenged before the vote took place and not after, ditto the "People's Vote" nonsense the people voted and they voted leave, respect the result and get on with it So you think that nobody should have the right to challenge something they consider to have been conducted unlawfully / criminally / unconstitutionally? Really? The referendum was conducted legally and constitutionally in the Government leaflet approved by parliament said we will implement the result the result was leave therefore the Government was empowered by a vote of the public to leave the EU, IMO it did not need approval from parliament The wishes/choice of the public should be paramount and MPs ( especially ones like mine ) should not vote against the wishes of the public.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,422
Likes: 2,893
|
Trump
Aug 28, 2024 18:53:14 GMT
jo likes this
Post by michaelc on Aug 28, 2024 18:53:14 GMT
the Ms Miller et al should have challenged before the vote took place and not after, ditto the "People's Vote" nonsense the people voted and they voted leave, respect the result and get on with it So you think that nobody should have the right to challenge something they consider to have been conducted unlawfully / criminally / unconstitutionally? Really? Think about what you're saying. I know you read all the anti-brexit blogs etc but please do stand back and think about it. I agree with you - I also want IN to the EU but I would never think about persuading myself that it would be legitimate to override an election in the UK because I think that is what is going on. I think folk like yourself hate the concept of Brexit so much that you've persuaded yourself it must be so wrong that you have hoodwinked _yourself_ into believing the legitimacy of your position. Starmer wins - I don't question it and have a lot of faith in the old dears and not so old dears who work tirelessly in the polling stations and Counts. If Corbyn had won I'd certainly have accepted it. If someone won on a ticket of banning cars and planes I'd suck it up. As an afterthought, I also blame this terrible "hard" brexit that was won partly on the people who tried to stop it. Johnson wouldn't have needed to whip up Brexiteers with a hard-brexit policy in 2019 had it not been for all the Guy Fawkes style treacherous behaviour taking place in our parliament. Also Theresa May would have found it easier to have implemented something rather softer without all the attempts by people like Starmer to reverse the vote. More interesting than this history, is what Starmer plans to do re the EU I wonder. Despite all the nods to the contrary, will free movement be back on the agenda?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,213
Likes: 11,404
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 28, 2024 19:01:57 GMT
So you think that nobody should have the right to challenge something they consider to have been conducted unlawfully / criminally / unconstitutionally? Really? The referendum was conducted legally and constitutionally in the Government leaflet approved by parliament said we will implement the result the result was leave therefore the Government was empowered by a vote of the public to leave the EU, IMO it did not need approval from parliament The wishes/choice of the public should be paramount and MPs ( especially ones like mine ) should not vote against the wishes of the public. Not how the UKs system of government works ... the referendum was conducted lawfully & constitutionally as determined by Parliament, and the relevant independent body, the Electoral Commission. It was not a binding referendum under the law but the Government, not Parliament though as the leaflet was not issued by them, said it would accept the result. Which it did and stated its intention to trigger article 50. The argument was then did it have the power to do so. Govts say they will do lots of things but that doesnt automatically mean they can do them. In this case, it turned out the power to exit a treaty was not the prerogative of the Government but Parliament. Perhaps the govt should have checked it could do what it thought it could first but then it didnt expect to lose Invoking Article 50 fulfilled the governments obligation under the Referendum, the form of that withdrawal was entirely outside the scope of the Referendum and entirly open to interpretation by Government, Parliament and the EU via the withdrawal agreement.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 28, 2024 20:48:18 GMT
So you think that nobody should have the right to challenge something they consider to have been conducted unlawfully / criminally / unconstitutionally? Really? ...... ... Either you have inadvertently missed the point you are responding to, or are stating that there should be no right to test at court an act you believe to be unlawful. The question posed is not about leaving the EU or not leaving the EU: it is about whether there was a right for an individual (or body) to get a court's decision on whether the GOVT acted lawfully in bypassing parliament i.e. whether the Govt. had the right/power to trigger Article 50, without Parliaments explicit direction to do so. The rightness of the argument was shown by the court's ruling that the govt. had acted unlawfully, and that an act of parliament was required. Not just the stroke of a pen at the executive's whim. Whatever one thinks of the underlying motive for asking the court to rule is frankly an irrelevance. Please stand back and think about it: to deny that right is to say that the executive should be free of challenge, and free to act as it wishes, bypassing parliament. It is that which would be a fundamental undermining of UK democracy, because we have a parliamentary democracy. This is a matter about lawful or unlawful process, not outcomes or motives per se. You mentioned earlier that comments about the referendum being "advisory" was a load of b/s, or words to that effect. It isn't: it is a matter of fact. The act required the referendum to be held, but made no provision for the vote to be legally binding on the government. It was therefore, in legal standing, advisory only. Had it made such provision, then potentially it could have also empowered the Govt. to trigger article 50 without a further act of parliament. It didn't, and therefore they did not have that right without gaining parliamentary approval to do so. To that extent the two issues are closely interwoven.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Aug 28, 2024 23:28:08 GMT
I can't believe the Trump thread had now descended into relitigating Brexit. What are the positive things about Brexit? Nothing. Few diehards are still grimly trying to put lipstick on the pig, but don't do it here.
|
|
k6
Posts: 248
Likes: 147
|
Trump
Aug 29, 2024 6:46:30 GMT
Post by k6 on Aug 29, 2024 6:46:30 GMT
I can't believe the Trump thread had now descended into relitigating Brexit. What are the positive things about Brexit? Nothing. Few diehards are still grimly trying to put lipstick on the pig, but don't do it here. Brexit. . . one huge . Till this day I can't believe brits fall for it. the only winner was mr.putler. This has to be reverted. And regarding Trump thread . . . no comment
|
|