Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Discuss Brexit court defeat for UK government in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net
There were many contradictory claims and statements made in the campaign, many argued that we could leave the EU and still either be in the common market, have access to the common market or be part of a Europe wide tariff free, free trade area.I think your missing the point here, we are not banging on as you put it, it was made very clear by Gove that to leave the EU also means leaving the EU structure which includes the single market etc, how can you expect to vote to leave a trade block and cherry pick the bits you want, so leaving is leaving - what is there to bring into parliament then to actually agree on the triggering of the article?
The UK would still be able to trade freely within Europe even if it left the EU, Michael Gove has said.
The justice secretary said the UK could be part of Europe's free trade area to avoid trade tariffs, even if it was not a member of the EU single market.
There were many contradictory claims and statements made in the campaign, many argued that we could leave the EU and still either be in the common market, have access to the common market or be part of a Europe wide tariff free, free trade area.
They also variously claimed that none of the rules that any other countries who have that level of access have to follow would need to apply to the UK, so we could scrap free movement of people, we could make up our own rules and regulations and not follow EU ones, we wouldn't need to pay anything into the EU etc etc etc.
Were they able to actually negotiate such a deal, then you'd possibly have a point, but if (as seems likely) what they actually end up negotiating is substantially different then it would be totally undemocratic for parliament not to have a say in the final decision / negotiating position. Either way though legally in a parliamentary democracy where the referendum was made on the basis of it being an advisory referendum, the judges were entirely right to say that any decision must be put to a vote in parliament - the alternative is basically fascism where the leader takes the final decision alone, not representative (or any other form of) democracy. That's really not a precedent we want to be setting, certainly not following a referendum decision where one of the key arguments was around improving UK democratic accountability / decision making.
You may well be ok with the idea of actually exiting the entire free trade area and there being import and export tariffs imposed in UK - EU trade, and tbh there are significant merits to this argument that I'm increasingly in favour of the more I look at it, but this definitely is not what the UK voted for in the referendum, it's not what those leading the leave campaign were saying prior to the vote.
here's one of the things Gove said in the campaign.
it won't be overturned, their legal ruling is a correct interpretation of the law, as was completely clear in the terms of the original referendum legislation.What Gove said there is completely correct even with WTO applied this doesn't mean tariffs will be imposed on everything, there will be many goods that will still be traded free as no member state nor the EU would ruin members economy to make a point to Britain, also to add Canada has a free trade deal now with zero of the costs or movement, Turkey trades many good without free movement or membership fee, so we go on a WTO be it long or short term but it's far more beneficial than the set up we have now...there has been a misleading campaign by remain who kept on saying that we would loose access to the single market which is in no way true whether we leave the single market or not we will always have access.
The point I was trying to get across with the high Court ruling is its based on a technicality and actually has no benefit to either remain or leave to bring it into effect, it's like a murderer showing the officer where he buried a body but not been read his rights so he cannot be charged with the murder ( it's happened) ... just because the referendum wasn't on paper made binding is the only reason we are here and normally it hasn't been an issue as it's just the way it's always been done - no one expected 3 members of Joe public to pull it on a technicality and that is all it is .... so the voice of 3people has dropped a spanner in the works of the opinions of 17million and it changes nothing to the result except costing the tax payer millions going through the court system to be eventually overturned.
it won't be overturned, their legal ruling is a correct interpretation of the law, as was completely clear in the terms of the original referendum legislation.
Parliament will make the final decision be it to accept May's proposals, amend them, reject them, or send the final proposals back to the people for a 2nd binding referendum.
We don't live in a county with an all powerful ruler who determines the country's fate by themselves without reference to parliament, we live in a parliamentary democracy.
I'm finding it quite concerning that some of the arguments against this court case and parliament getting to vote on this (eg that made by one of UKIP's leadership candidates) is veering dangerously close to support for a fascist state - judges should be answerable to the government, the leader should take this huge decision without reference to parliament etc.
In your view it may be a mere technicality, but it's an incredibly important technicality as anything else would mean we no longer lived in a parliamentary democracy.
That's from the 1972 treaty, which basically states that any change to any of the EU Treaties, or new Treaties or agreements with the EU can only be entered into following approval by both houses of parliament.(3)If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of [F19the EUTreaties] as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded; but a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972, other than a pre-accession treaty to which the United Kingdom accedes on terms settled on or before that date, shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4)For purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, “treaty” includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement.
Commencement or repeal of amending provisions
(1)The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—
(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and
(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.
(2)If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions.
Reply to Brexit court defeat for UK government in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net