anon84679660:
the Rule of law must prevail in the end
When laws between two nations differ enough - THAT is when you have a war to decide “Which law can be enforced, and which trodden into the dust.”
All the government atrocities of History. Miscarriages of Justice, and Suppressions of People were all perfectly legal in their day. The act of “Attacking that nation to stop them” was the first illegal act on a large scale as far as those nations were concerned.
People slag off Chamberlain - but in the end he was the one who had the balls to declare war upon Germany - NOT Churchill - although he did step aside, and advise George VI “Send for Churchill” when he tendered his resignation…
Carryfast:
The argument is about the supremacy of remain MP’s over the Leave referendum vote.
The supremacy issue is simple, MP’s have it. Whether they are remainers or brexiters is irrelevant, they are the ones that make and amend our laws.
There is no argument whatsoever, a referendum is advisory in nature only, again by law. It is all there in black and white. Only the MP’s can get us out of Europe, you can hold a hundred referenda, it won’t change an iota, parliament and only parliament is in charge. End of.
Hopefully that isn’t how the French FN or AfD among others will view it.In which case ironically yes let’s do it your way and fight the argument out properly within Europe.
On that note you’ve already lost the argument if you’re trying to make the case for parliamentary sovereignty used for handing that same sovereignty over to the EU federal government system.IE yes parliament has sovereignty in making our laws.But it doesn’t have powers to give that sovereignty away to a foreign power.At that point it’s referedum that’s supreme.Although feel free to ignore that fact and see what happens.
Again you are wrong, each and every EU directive was debated and voted on in the Uk parliament, your objections just don’t hold up to any scrutiny.
Before your next post do yourself and us all a huge favour, take your meds and spend 2 minutes on google before you take your conspiracy theories as fact.
CF, get of your high horse, you may sway the very few fans you have here but any one with an ounce of intellect can see that you just spout rubbish.
Do a bit of fact checking, you got thousands of posts of the same stuff and it is all rubbish and held together by different strands of various farflung and weak conspiracy theories with more holes in them then Swiss cheese.
Carryfast:
As I said if the 1975 referendum wasn’t accepted as being supreme exactly what vote then took place within parliament after it regarding whether to continue our EEC membership status…
The 1975 advisory referendum was about the 1973 act. The result of the 75 election did not result in any debate in the house of commons, it was just an affirmation of the 1973 decision, Europe wasn’t discussed until the direct representation issues in 1977.
Please get your facts straight, each and every referendum in the UK is and always has been advisory, this one is no different to the 1975 one. A referendum is never supreme to parliament. May tried it but was rightfully put back in her box.
So, in that case - we’ve lived under the illegal rule of Europe for the past 40 years then?
If a government wants to obey a law it’s “Law” but if not then it’s “Advisory”. This, of course are the seeds of Suppression everywhere.
I wonder what would have happened if Chamberlain had refused to step aside for Churchill, saying that “I’m the lawful Prime Minister. What Germany has done in Poland is illegal, but I’m not about to enact another illegal act to stop it!”
Well he kinda wasn’t… He just moved away so someone else who WAS prepared to break some international laws, and crack a few heads - have their shot.
Carryfast:
As I said if the 1975 referendum wasn’t accepted as being supreme exactly what vote then took place within parliament after it regarding whether to continue our EEC membership status…
The 1975 advisory referendum was about the 1973 act. The result of the 75 election did not result in any debate in the house of commons, it was just an affirmation of the 1973 decision, Europe wasn’t discussed until the direct representation issues in 1977.
Please get your facts straight, each and every referendum in the UK is and always has been advisory, this one is no different to the 1975 one. A referendum is never supreme to parliament. May tried it but was rightfully put back in her box.
As I said it was an ‘affirmation’ of the 1973 decision that was never then ‘affirmed’ by parliament because the referendum decision was accepted as being supreme.Bearing in mind that at that point there was a good chance that parliament would have over turned the referendum decision ‘affirming’ our membership.
As for May trying it no if she had tried’ it’ we’d already be in the situation of article 50 at least having been invoked.She’s a federalist establishment plant just like Cameron.
Winseer:
So, in that case - we’ve lived under the illegal rule of Europe for the past 40 years then?
.
No, we have lived under the 1972 act amended in 1973, the referendum wasn’t until 1975 to fulfil an election manifesto, at no time was it stated that the referendum would validate parliaments decisions or for that matter invalidate them that had been in force for 3 years.
Carryfast:
As I said if the 1975 referendum wasn’t accepted as being supreme exactly what vote then took place within parliament after it regarding whether to continue our EEC membership status…
The 1975 advisory referendum was about the 1973 act. The result of the 75 election did not result in any debate in the house of commons, it was just an affirmation of the 1973 decision, Europe wasn’t discussed until the direct representation issues in 1977.
Please get your facts straight, each and every referendum in the UK is and always has been advisory, this one is no different to the 1975 one. A referendum is never supreme to parliament. May tried it but was rightfully put back in her box.
As I said it was an ‘affirmation’ of the 1973 decision that was never then ‘affirmed’ by parliament because the referendum decision was accepted as being supreme.Bearing in mind that at that point there was a good chance that parliament would have over turned the referendum decision ‘affirming’ our membership.
As for May trying it no if she had tried’ it’ we’d already be in the situation of article 50 at least having been invoked.She’s a federalist establishment plant just like Cameron.
Again you are wrong, at no time was the referendum seen as supreme, it was just a gauge of public opinion, that is all referenda are.
Go read the bloody act instead of trying to argue with irrefutable facts. You are really showing your ignorance now.
Go do some homework and stop making a fool of yourself.
Carryfast:
The argument is about the supremacy of remain MP’s over the Leave referendum vote.
The supremacy issue is simple, MP’s have it. Whether they are remainers or brexiters is irrelevant, they are the ones that make and amend our laws.
There is no argument whatsoever, a referendum is advisory in nature only, again by law. It is all there in black and white. Only the MP’s can get us out of Europe, you can hold a hundred referenda, it won’t change an iota, parliament and only parliament is in charge. End of.
Hopefully that isn’t how the French FN or AfD among others will view it.In which case ironically yes let’s do it your way and fight the argument out properly within Europe.
On that note you’ve already lost the argument if you’re trying to make the case for parliamentary sovereignty used for handing that same sovereignty over to the EU federal government system.IE yes parliament has sovereignty in making our laws.But it doesn’t have powers to give that sovereignty away to a foreign power.At that point it’s referedum that’s supreme.Although feel free to ignore that fact and see what happens.
Again you are wrong, each and every EU directive was debated and voted on in the Uk parliament, your objections just don’t hold up to any scrutiny.
Before your next post do yourself and us all a huge favour, take your meds and spend 2 minutes on google before you take your conspiracy theories as fact.
CF, get of your high horse, you may sway the very few fans you have here but any one with an ounce of intellect can see that you just spout rubbish.
Do a bit of fact checking, you got thousands of posts of the same stuff and it is all rubbish and held together by different strands of various farflung and weak conspiracy theories with more holes in them then Swiss cheese.
We’re not talking abou EU directives which parliament actually has no right of opt out over at all as being a Federalist you’d obviously know.We’re talking about our EU membership which being a matter of handing over sovereignty to a foreign power is a matter of referendum not parliamentary vote.Which is why 1 we had the 1975 referendum.2 That referendum vote was accepted as being supreme against a Labour at least majority for leave.3 Was then re run on the correct basis that the 1975 campaign lied to the electorate regarding the issue of sovereignty.
Notice that the Leave vote obviously also has the intelligence and confidence in its argument not to need to resort to personal insults.
Winseer:
So, in that case - we’ve lived under the illegal rule of Europe for the past 40 years then?
.
No, we have lived under the 1972 act amended in 1973, the referendum wasn’t until 1975 to fulfil an election manifesto, at no time was it stated that the referendum would validate parliaments decisions or for that matter invalidate them that had been in force for 3 years.
The smoking gun is the fact that we didn’t have a parliamentary vote on the referendum result to remain at the time.
In which case how the zb did we end up remaining in the EEC against a majority Labour parliamentary vote at least for leave.On that note I’ll just say that you’re spouting typical Federalist lying bs.On the basis that referendum is fine if it goes your way but not binding if it doesn’t.You do know this is how civil wars start.
Winseer:
So, in that case - we’ve lived under the illegal rule of Europe for the past 40 years then?
.
No, we have lived under the 1972 act amended in 1973, the referendum wasn’t until 1975 to fulfil an election manifesto, at no time was it stated that the referendum would validate parliaments decisions or for that matter invalidate them that had been in force for 3 years.
The smoking gun is the fact that we didn’t have a parliamentary vote on the referendum result to remain at the time.
In which case how the zb did we end up remaining in the EEC against a majority Labour parliamentary vote at least for leave.On that note I’ll just say that you’re spouting typical Federalist lying bs.On the basis that referendum is fine if it goes your way but not binding if it doesn’t.You do know this is how civil wars start.
There is no smoking gun there was no legislative need for a vote.
Go read the acts and parliamentary procedures. I have given you all the facts and still you argue with your own shadow.
Carryfast:
We’re talking about our EU membership which being a matter of handing over sovereignty to a foreign power is a matter of referendum not parliamentary vote.Which is why 1 we had the 1975 referendum.2 That referendum vote was accepted as being supreme against a Labour at least majority for leave.3 Was then re run on the correct basis that the 1975 campaign lied to the electorate regarding the issue of sovereignty.
Notice that the Leave vote obviously also has the intelligence and confidence in its argument not to need to resort to personal insults.
Wrong on all points again. Go read the acts and stop spouting rubbish as gospel.
You can keep posting the same tosh over and over again that doesn’t make it any more right the hundredth time as it did the first time.
Carryfast:
We’re talking about our EU membership which being a matter of handing over sovereignty to a foreign power is a matter of referendum not parliamentary vote.Which is why 1 we had the 1975 referendum.2 That referendum vote was accepted as being supreme against a Labour at least majority for leave.3 Was then re run on the correct basis that the 1975 campaign lied to the electorate regarding the issue of sovereignty.
Notice that the Leave vote obviously also has the intelligence and confidence in its argument not to need to resort to personal insults.
Wrong on all points again. Go read the acts and stop spouting rubbish as gospel.
You can keep posting the same tosh over and over again that doesn’t make it any more right the hundredth time as it did the first time.
As I said if the Federalists want to over turn a legitimate referendum vote be careful what they wish for.IE assuming they succeed I think it will ironically turn out to be counterproductive from their point of view.In hopefully waking up the anti Federalist/Nationalist movements right across Europe in realising that these undemocratic zb’s will stop at nothing to create their dictatorial soviet zb hole.On that note true to form no surprise that their bs legal challenge only happened after they’d lost not before.
While unfortunately,bearing in mind the above,I’d guess the supreme court will probably uphold the referendum vote,not because they want to.But because of the fear of kicking off something much bigger in Europe.With the anti Federalist Eurosceptic roups across Europe given the moral high ground,of having the example,of a legitimate referendum vote,overturned.Which is why as I said Farage should have boycotted Cameron’s bs referendum and stood his ground in Europe and tried to smash the EU from within.
Tommy7437:
For anybody who thought their vote actually counts for anything now knows your vote means nothing!
Only matters if you vote for what the elite want!
Britain = CORRUPT TO THE CORE
Look on the bright side.Martyring Brexit now might arguably do more to help to smash the Federal zb pile in the longer term.By creating more allies across Europe having shown it up for the undemocratic Soviet style agenda it is.Than trying to save Farage’s failed derailed plan,which Cameron knew was rigged from the start.
Tommy7437:
For anybody who thought their vote actually counts for anything now knows your vote means nothing!
Only matters if you vote for what the elite want!
Britain = CORRUPT TO THE CORE
Not quite sure what vote you are talking about. The general election? That vote surely counts. The referendum? That was just an opinion poll, nothing more, nothing less. A referendum has no legal status in Britain, never has never will. Everybody knows that.
You took part in an opinion poll, for your suggestion to count, Parliament needs to vote on any bill that the government at the time suggests to it and pass that in the house of commons, that is how our democracy works.
If you want your referendum suggestion to count for anything can I suggest you move to either California or Switzerland? They do have a direct democracy, we don’t.
Instead of sulking about your opinion poll not counting for anything, which really should not be a surprise at all, why don’t you lobby your MP, he or she is in charge, by law.
Carryfast:
We’re talking about our EU membership which being a matter of handing over sovereignty to a foreign power is a matter of referendum not parliamentary vote.Which is why 1 we had the 1975 referendum.2 That referendum vote was accepted as being supreme against a Labour at least majority for leave.3 Was then re run on the correct basis that the 1975 campaign lied to the electorate regarding the issue of sovereignty.
Notice that the Leave vote obviously also has the intelligence and confidence in its argument not to need to resort to personal insults.
Wrong on all points again. Go read the acts and stop spouting rubbish as gospel.
You can keep posting the same tosh over and over again that doesn’t make it any more right the hundredth time as it did the first time.
As I said if the Federalists want to over turn a legitimate referendum vote be careful what they wish for.IE assuming they succeed I think it will ironically turn out to be counterproductive from their point of view.In hopefully waking up the anti Federalist/Nationalist movements right across Europe in realising that these undemocratic zb’s will stop at nothing to create their dictatorial soviet zb hole.On that note true to form no surprise that their bs legal challenge only happened after they’d lost not before.
While unfortunately,bearing in mind the above,I’d guess the supreme court will probably uphold the referendum vote,not because they want to.But because of the fear of kicking off something much bigger in Europe.With the anti Federalist Eurosceptic roups across Europe given the moral high ground,of having the example,of a legitimate referendum vote,overturned.Which is why as I said Farage should have boycotted Cameron’s bs referendum and stood his ground in Europe and tried to smash the EU from within.
Again you are wrong, why am I not surprised. The supreme court is not even considering the referendum vote as it has no legal status in the UK as was made very clear in black and white in the 2015 referendum act, coupled with the 2000 act.
Referenda in the UK have always been advisory, whether pre legislative or post legislative.
The issue the Supreme court is debating on is the same as the high court, can the PM abolish parliament and act as a dictator. You don’t need to be a legal scholar to see the outcome.
This court ruling is simply a case of the remainers not being happy with the referendum result (the will of the people) and are now doing whatever they can to overturn it. The judge was obviously a remainer, this Gina bird definitely is, and I’ve got a horrible feeling that they’ll get their way in the end, this referendum thing was a complete waste of time.
The reason the royal prerogative cannot be used to trigger Brexit is because doing so: “will extinguish rights incorporated by the 1972 European Communities Act” . (Clive Coleman BBC). Start at 9.00.
So it’s back to the unwanted EU again. It got nothing to do with centuries-old constitutional rights establishing parliamentary sovereignty. It’s got a whole lot more to do with vested interests bankrolling this legal action because they are terrified that the abolition of free movement of people to the UK will threaten their profits derived from cheap imported labour.
cav551:
The reason the royal prerogative cannot be used to trigger Brexit is because doing so: “will extinguish rights incorporated by the 1972 European Communities Act” . (Clive Coleman BBC). Start at 9.00.
So it’s back to the unwanted EU again. It got nothing to do with centuries-old constitutional rights establishing parliamentary sovereignty. It’s got a whole lot more to do with vested interests bankrolling this legal action because they are terrified that the abolition of free movement of people to the UK will threaten their profits derived from cheap imported labour.
Seriously? Nothing to do with the EU, it was the UK parliament who passed the act, only the UK parliament can amend or change it.
It has everything to do with the centuries old parliamentary supremacy.
