Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The referendum wasn't legally binding. The court has said that the Government simply doesn't have the power to issue Article 50. It's not them rowing back on it.
|
I know it was advisory but you have MPs suggesting it was binding, because you cannot give the people a decision and then take it away from them without causing a serious constitutional crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
erm ,this isn't about stopping Brexit ,it's about who has the authority to start the process and the manner it will take and that should always lay with Parliament ....unless you want a dictatorship
|
I know it is not about stopping Brexit but it has to be asked does bringing this case to the high court really mean that? That this is not some kind of futile attempt by someone who is venomously against Brexit?
Parliament gave the decision to the people, the people chose that we leave, no back room deals, no stupid, well we will keep this or keep that arrangement. Leave meant leave, as far as I am concerned and that means leave everything to do with the EU, we can keep most of their useful laws, that is still to be decided. Once we leave, we can then arrange the trade deals with other nations.
It's ludicrous to suggest that it is a dictatorship, that the PM is going to invoke Article 50, bypassing Parliamentary process, when actually it already went through one when it voted overwhelmingly to give the British people the vote. So democracy took place and it was answered, leave meant leave. It did not ask on the ballot paper, do you want to leave but keep this or keep that? It simply asked if we wished to leave the EU or stay and it was decided by 17.4 Million people.
You are not telling me Gina Miller, the one who took this the Courts, a staunch remoaner, cares so deeply about Parliamentary scrutiny ? Not a chance. I firmly believe she wants this to pass through the veto route, because bless her, it was said, she felt so unwell when Brexit won.