Firstly, as everyone knows, and I have said before, Admin very rarely intercedes in any threads but in this case it was the correct decision to close this thread. Secondly, everyone knows my stance on the subject of the Referendum but I hope that they also know that all Admin are completely and utterly neutral when interceding in a thread that contains a sensitive, controversial, and dividing [even on GC] subject. This thread has lasted 102 pages without, until now, several posts causing offence and concern to members who have flagged their concerns to Admin. The result of the Referendum has caused degrees of reactions, disappointment, joy, and division of opinion, among the Nation and, unfortunately, even among our most reasonable and tolerant members. So certain views have been stated, to which the owners are entitled, in posts that, despite qualifications and apologies. have offended members. I think the strength of disappointment in the result of the most important national decision has clouded reason and induced an overwhelming conviction of pessimism that has dragged the essence of the thread down regardless of the result So can I ask, once again, that if a person is going to post in this thread and thinks that it might cause offence to other members, then they should think, think again, and then not post it. Admin would like this thread to continue as it is an important thread but it should not be brought down by the strength of disappointment of memberS in the result of the Referendum, the questioning of the intelligence of those who voted either way. etc. The deal is done, there is still at lot of controversy, disappointment, anger, divisions, to come in the next few years.........but, hopefully, not in the Gardeners Corner Gang
Ref the above, please ignore the over lining in the last few sentences of the thread, it's a computer blip.
Thanks, FC..................let's hope the "too much depression and knocking the country's future down" has been fixed.
Hmmmmmm... I could take my soldering gear on the tube to Westminster, and see what repairs I could do in the House of Commons.... I have a feeling that I might find a lot of dodgy connections, and quite a few loose screws.........
Well, it looks as though we may have a new Prime Minister sooner than we expected. We're down to the last three candidates.
I find the new debate about whether the government can go ahead with Article 50 (some firm of solicitors is bringing it into doubt) quite interesting. Apparently the argument is that as the MP's haven't voted on it then the government can't go ahead. I have no idea on the legality of it but I'm always happy to try and argue any side of the debate . I think it can be argued that it has been approved by parliament, even if it's by default. Cameron originally stated that the referendum would be held and its decision would be upheld. I don't think that this was questioned at all in parliament. So, I presume, that no argument or call for a debate, is tacit approval. Of course, they all expected it to be a vote to Remain so they probably didn't see any point in objecting. This is all supposition on my part as I don't know whether there was any comment in parliament or even that the, so called, legal argument on the illegality of invoking Article 50 is going to even be considered. It has never stopped me commenting on things before
You do have to ask the question as to who is paying the Solicitors to challenge/question the triggering of Article 50.
The argument being put forward by Mishcon de Reya and others is that the Prime minister can not use executive powers to trigger Article 50 as this would override the Act of Parliament by which the UK joined the EU. To repeal this act would require further legislation to passed by Parliament Parliament being supreme and the Government and Prime minister being servants of Parliament. See here for more http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36700350 I am sure that other solicitors can be found to put forward differing points of view. The referendum was only ever advisory and not binding on the Government. Cameron and his cabinet could just have ignored the referendum.
Cameron did state that he would abide by the result of the referendum. I know that we would be foolish to believe the word of a politician but he did say it and nobody contradicted him. Apparently there are already some solicitors working on refuting Mishcon de Reya's assumptions but if you look closely at what they are saying it's fairly clear that there is really no problem in the situation. They're only asserting that it needs to be done constitutionally. They're not saying that Article 50 can't be triggered but that it needs to be done in the correct way. This was always a given because they would need to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act! "However, it seems constitutionally inconceivable that Parliament would fly in the face of the Leave vote secured through a national referendum and refuse to pass an act that gave the prime minister authority to begin the "divorce" process."
Cameron also said he'd invoke article 50 immediately but he hasn't followed through on that I did have a chuckle at Clarke and Rifkind's comments when they thought they were off camera
Hmm, got mixed feelings over that video. On the one hand, illuminating! On the other, it is labelled an "off-air moment"; Clarke and Rifkind were clearly having a conversation they believed to be between the two of them (and not recorded!) in which case, should it then have been aired? It smacks of that "Big Brother" programme that used to be on and very typical of the biased reporting on Sky News. Mind you, as experienced politicians (and let's not forget Brown's "Bigot" moment) you would have thought they would have removed their microphones if they were not "on air"
