Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#341
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/11/2016 18:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:03 on Fri, 18 Nov 2016, d remarked: As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born in the UK you shouldn't have had a vote in the referendum. What the spanish or any other govn do with respect to immigrants who have taken local nationality is entirely up to them. Not even if married to a Brit for 30yrs and naturalised British? cough 38 years. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
#342
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#343
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote: The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative apparently held by the PM-du-jour. Not quite. But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation. True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed the European Communities Act. The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given. This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I. There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this had been passed by Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs, and that the government would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto triggered by the referendum itself. Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the "advisory" card, but that really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the way, peasants, if you vote the wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in the event of a Leave vote he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be exposed as utterly cynical liars and not fit to represent the people. From an FT reader's comment, via Twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxX-B-2U...jpg&name=large |
#344
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/11/2016 22:29, Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote: On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote: The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative apparently held by the PM-du-jour. Not quite. But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation. True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed the European Communities Act. The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given. This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I. There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this had been passed by Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs, and that the government would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto triggered by the referendum itself. Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the "advisory" card, but that really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the way, peasants, if you vote the wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in the event of a Leave vote he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be exposed as utterly cynical liars and not fit to represent the people. From an FT reader's comment, via Twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxX-B-2U...jpg&name=large Just about says it all. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
#345
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 07:37:10 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/11/2016 22:29, Recliner wrote: Optimist wrote: On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote: The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative apparently held by the PM-du-jour. Not quite. But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation. True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed the European Communities Act. The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given. This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I. There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this had been passed by Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs, and that the government would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto triggered by the referendum itself. Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the "advisory" card, but that really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the way, peasants, if you vote the wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in the event of a Leave vote he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be exposed as utterly cynical liars and not fit to represent the people. From an FT reader's comment, via Twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxX-B-2U...jpg&name=large Just about says it all. There are numerous papers on the subject of leaving the EU, easily found in web searches, but these are never read by europhiles who then parrot the sort of nonsense given in the above link. In fact we can leave quickly and easily given the political will. I'm not convinced that Mrs. May has that will, otherwise she would have given the EU notice of her intentions and taken steps to repeal the ECA by now. |
#346
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#347
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#348
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#350
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:52:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:51:03 on Fri, 18 Nov 2016, d remarked: As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born in the UK you shouldn't have had a vote in the referendum. What the spanish or any other govn do with respect to immigrants who have taken local nationality is entirely up to them. Not even if married to a Brit for 30yrs and naturalised British? No. Not even. -- Spud |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bye Bye Wolmar | London Transport | |||
"The Subterranean Railway" - Wolmar | London Transport |