Brexit: (Unelected) Lords ‘will stall Theresa May’s plans if she pursues a hard EU withdrawal’

>Parliament will amend and delay Brexit unless an acceptable withdrawal plan is put forward, Theresa May has been warned.

>Both Nick Clegg and a Conservative peer seized on yesterday’s High Court ruling to tell the Prime Minister she no longer had a free hand in the exit talks.

>The former Liberal Democrat leader said the party’s MPs and peers would demand a soft Brexit and – crucially – a second referendum on the deal that emerges.

>Meanwhile, Tory peer Baroness Wheatcroft said the House of Lords was ready to stall the legislation now likely to be needed to trigger the Article 50 notice period, if necessary.

REEEEEEE

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-statement-full-read-judgement-summary-high-court-theresa-may-article-50-a7395071.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

cucks

imagine if yes won the Scotland referendum and then judges decided there would have to be an independent parliament decision

Friendly reminder that courts are an antiquated and extremely corrupt institution that have got to go.

Isn't it Britbong tradition to cut the heads off people in power when the public is outraged?

the ruling is absolutely correct.
to rule otherwise would completely undermine parliamentary sovereignty, setting a dangerous precedent where future governments could, without parliamentary approval, annul any laws they feel like dismantling.

this could have all been avoided if the referendum had actually had any thought put into it.

also
>May's plans
this works out really well for Teresa.

>that guy in the middle
Those wigs are hideous, did they just take a slab of fucking carpet and cut it into shape?

That's French, dumbass.

The Noose for traitors.

Why the fuck do they insist on wearing such silly outfits?

I mean, I get the pomp and circumstance, and tradition... but powdered wigs?! I mean, really...

That's Frogs.

Hmmm, does Kek will it?

There shouldn't be a plan for maximum lulz.

We need to fight against the plan.

>MUH SOVEREIGNTY

>NOOO NOOO TOO MUCH SOVEREIGNTY PLZ TAKE IT BACK EU!!! TAKE IT BACKKKKKKKKK

What did the daily mail mean by this?

>wanting to let an unelected PM execute Royal prerogative

I voted for Brexit and it will still happen. Wanting it to be a shitshow that disregards parliamentary process shows that you don't actually give two fucks about British sovereignty or the future governance of the country.

The terms will actually have to be debated now as well. I don't actually want to fuck the country up just for the sake of lol fuck the EU and brown people by rushing this.

Well at least in the event that your government defies it's people you grab your guns and fight back. Oh wait...

Pardon me, old bean.

I knew it was some cucked country in Europe.

>crusader-flag-71478.jpg
isn't that the flag of Georgia?

Supreme court will throw this ruling right out I think

That's the Georgian flag, bud

Good Morning!

Isnt it ironic that the same people crying about unelected bureaucrats making laws for Britain now want an unelected bureaucrat to override British courts and parliament?

>parliamentary sovereignty overrides the people
Cucks

There are faggots on my island who care about muh parliament and not just getting the fuck on and force this shit.

What is Charles the first ?

And they have off-shore bank accounts that are given to them full of millions of dollars.

This is how corruption works. I dont know why 17.4 million fuckers will sit on their hands while these 3 faggots destroy their country

It does. Parliament are the elected representatives of the people and it will still pass as it would be political suicide. Direct democracy isn't the British system of government... nor did it become it at any point during any of this.

And let's be honest here, if there was another referendum Brexit would absolutely lose. This will of the people crap is cringeworthy.

>muh will of the people
>wants to be governed by an unelected pm wielding Royal prerogative

We're waiting for the supreme court appeal.

>Direct democracy isn't the British system of government
Should be more of it, the referendum has shown how out of touch and unrepresentative our "representatives" are.
>unelected pm wielding Royal prerogative
For one thing people voted for.

So it seems the whole Brexit issue is a showdown of unelected bureaucrats VS unelected bureaucrats. How amusing.

That would be the French.

It is the St. George flag. Maxed out for maximum justice.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
-Edmund Burke

This is the future you chose brexitard, get swiss citizenship if you want democracy.

>Should be more of it

Should there fuck. Most people voted for retarded reasons, it just so happened to favour what I want. I don't want that shit muddying other things.

>people that work in government
>people that work in law
>out of touch with dave the builder that hates pakis

Well yes.

the people voted for brexit - they're still going to get brexit.

they did not vote how brexit will happen, at all.

the repeal of laws is a matter of constitutional law, and not a trivial one where you can set aside precedent just because some people want to rush.

When will you elect people who hate Pakis to have representatives who actually represent your people.

>without parliamentary approval,

but the parliament approved the referendum
the referendum would not happen if they didn't let it happen

Good pleb, keep licking the arse of the elites

Hey moron, you had a plebiscite. There is no need to use representatives of the people to make a second decision when the people themselves already made that decision.

Why do British lawyers/judges still wear those cringy as fuck wigs?

I am an elite. Poorfag.

they voted for a non-legally binding referendum. the statute does not afford the government the ability to repeal the communities act without parliamentary approval.

no one made a decision re: procedure.

>plebiscite

No we didn't. Parliament has to authorise a plebiscite. It was advisory, this was obviously miscommunicated. They said it would be enacted but they didn't do any of the legal requirements to make it an actual plebiscite.

this is treason against britain, the british and the queen

>to rule otherwise would completely undermine parliamentary sovereignty
Not really. Besides, parliament is supposed to represent the people. The people voted out, parliament should respect the wishes of their constituents.

I didnt know parliament had judges, does Japan work the same way?

but you did, you decided to leave the EU. Now what they are arguing over is how, which has turned into stalling and claims that there must be a second referendum to approve the exit plan.

Because they are a cucked nation that can only relive the glory days by playing dress-up while their rapefugees usher in sharia.

Fuck. The whole system is imploding and May could be out of a government and forced into a general election. Not to mention more of her own Brexiteer MP's might resign because she didn't activate article 50 of the Lisbon treaty in time.

Fuck.

>be brit
>your vote doesnt matter
Tha-thanks judge!

if the judges ruled voting doesnt count for anything then doesnt that also invalidate all elections?

(((Advisory))) Referendum and weird wigs.

Good job bongs.

a nation without a written Constitution, how regressive of you - no wonder your elites fuck you and change the laws on a whim. You guys deserve this.

^this plz

You know what they call people like you? Useful Idiots.

>no wonder your elites fuck you and change the laws on a whim. You guys deserve this.
>wants an unelected PM to use Royal prerogative powers

This argument is fucking stupid and fuck you for peddling it. Brits voted to the leave the EU, not for parliament to agree on leaving the EU. They transferred sovereignty to the people with a referendum. Keep pushing Brexiteers and there will be a bloodbath. You have no idea how much they hate you.

No because an election isn't an advisory referendum.

Haha

I hope we end up staying just for shits

>but you did, you decided to leave the EU
and we will.

>Now what they are arguing over is how
this case is specifically about the government's ability to bypass parliament and repeal legislation that was enacted by parliament. that's all the court cares about.

>which has turned into stalling and claims that there must be a second referendum to approve the exit plan.
to put it more accurately, certain groups believe that parliament should have a say in the way brexit is negotiated. to accomplish this they're using a legal challenge (one that they will win) to gain leverage.

the court simply rules on the matter of law presented to them. what anyone use those judgments for is not a matter that concerns the court in this instance. and the high court was right in their decision and the supreme court will likely uphold it unanimously. the politics are of no concern to the courts.

again, if referendum act actually had some teeth to it, none of this would have been an issue, but it doesn't. if that act had provisions allowing the sitting government to unilaterally negotiate a new deal none of this would be happening.

want to blame someone for this mess? blame cameron.

the court ruled voting doesnt matter, they never said that only advisorys dont count or did they? do they release their opinions online? would like to read.

That's the flag of Georgia you retard

>Unelected PM
All Prime Ministers are unelected.

We have never elected someone for the specific office, because that's given off to whoever fucking wins

Even if you want to take electing the reigning leader and party as "elected", in the last 110 years, there have been more "Unelected" PMs than elected, 13 versus 12

thats a pretty cool flag!

>Sup Forums doesn't like British laws interpreted by British judges in British courts which validate the absolute sovereignty of the British parliamentary system.

Read user's post.

This is a good thing anyway.

People wanting May and her select people negotiating this and using prerogative power instead of putting it before our democratically elected representatives are hypocrites when talking about the will of the people, sovereignty etc... this is how British government works they wanted it.

The referendum was advisory, the court has simply ruled that the exit has to follow the legal requirements instead of completely bypassing it. Brexit will still happen but now it's not just in May's hands, which is a good thing and it won't set direct democratic precedents for completely ignoring our elected representatives.

full judgment and 2 page summary here:
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-statement-full-read-judgement-summary-high-court-theresa-may-article-50-a7395071.html

>this case is specifically about the government's ability to bypass parliament and repeal legislation that was enacted by parliament. that's all the court cares about.
In the deeper case it's a battle over Royal Prerogative powers, aka the powers of the Queen and the Crown, which the court has just said don't fucking exist.

It's a literal constitutional crisis.

Regarding bypassing parliament and repealing legislation, neither of those even had to be touched to article 50. All that we would need would be for government to just ignore them, update the judicial guidelines and they would be for all intents and purposes defunct like so many laws passed and never repealed.


But no. There are far reaching consequences for this case, which are going to be a problem for a long time.

>the court has simply ruled that the exit has to follow

bullshit, the court ruled that if the parliament wants to, there may be no exit at all, and the referendum is completely worthless.

I'll take "What are activist SJW judges in a country with no codified and protected written constitution" for 200 Alex.

>independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-statement-full-read-judgement-summary-high-court-theresa-may-article-50-a7395071.html
thanks bro not to up on Continental law but will check it out.

That would be political suicide and it won't happen but yes, it was advisory. It was always advisory.

Just because most people don't seem to know that it wasn't legally binding doesn't change that.

Imagine, the leave tears would sink this island. We would become like Atlantis.

Daily reminder that this Hue avenged all Hues by Jean Charles de Menezes

Back in the day it was unthinkable that the organs of power be infested with traitors.

doesn't matter, the court in no way decided that the exit has to happen, you know that.

Why would they? It was advisory, you can't make it binding after the fact.

Honestly, speaking democratically, the people only voted for the Brexit fairly narrowly; the representative motion ~would~ be soft Brexit. I dislike immigration as well, but that's not what this vote was about, and it's not realistic, nor would it be particularly decent politics, to try to make this vote into something it's not.

Exit soft now; it gives us options later.

And Theresa May's on a warpath; she's outright foaming at the mouth and could do with some being told to take a breath and behave.

>the powers of the Queen and the Crown, which the court has just said don't fucking exist.

that not true at all. the crown prerogative can be used to do plenty of stuff - just not repeal legislation enacted by parliament.

even the govt accepts that triggering art 50 would results in dozens, if not hundreds of domestic laws being affected. to do this without parliamentary approval does indeed become a matter of parliamentary sovereignty.

high-court and supreme court/house of lords judgments have been a pleasure to read for quite some time now.

they're really well laid out and break things down as much as possible so that any one can read them.

self-regulation in the legal system's tried to get away from the alienating language the court used to use in the past.

>self-regulation in the legal system's tried to get away from the alienating language the court used to use in the past.
By that do you mean they didnt use modern english terms and instead used some traditional legalese?

>no one made a decision re: procedure.
Yes we did. We voted to leave the EU and for our government to trigger article 50. That's the fucking procedure. The procedure is literally written into the EU's (and this makes me very sick to say this) "constitution." Anything beyond that is for May's cabinet to sort out, not Parliament.

It makes me sick to say "constitution" because of the absurdity of the EU's power creep, from a trading bloc we weren't asked about, to being a political entity that rules over us. It is very sinister. Almost by design it seems that the heat has been slowly raised.

Honest to Christ, it's 2016. I understand the respect for tradition, by why the bloody hell are your judges still wearing outlandish shit like that?
It makes it incredibly hard to take seriously when they look like Mrs. Santa Claus if she crossdressed.

yes. in particular, the use of latin terms (with the exception of a few, which do have to be spelt out) is generally frowned upon these days.

i can't be bothered to repeat myself any more, so let's just agree to disagree. the lords will have their say next month and they're the ones that count.

i will say that despite their ruling, imo the timeline towards exit will be only vary by a few months - a minuscule amount of time imo. the new deal will likely be unaffected - the eu has enough leverage to dictate terms. all this decision does is allow theresa may a convenient excuse when she can't deliver hard brexit - something that's always been a political, social and economic impossibility.

Because that's what judges are supposed to wear. I guess that's a hard concept in the land of Judge Judy.

>yes. in particular, the use of latin terms (with the exception of a few, which do have to be spelt out) is generally frowned upon these days.
ahhh glad to hear they reformed the language to common use which is more useful for new law students as well. As if learning the law wasnt annoying enough learning a language on top would make it more annoying.

So hmmm let me ask from reading this it says that these referendums are somehow tied to the Crown since its advisory in nature which is not established under law as part of the parliament? Am I getting the gist of this system? Feel free to insult as this is my first exposure to this legal system outside of the US system and well Louisiana which commercially uses a diff code than the rest of the country just to piss everyone off :P

The vote was for a "soft" brexit, or rather a return to the original EU treaty which was mutual economic benefits not full on federalism

The majority wanted boarders reinforced, power to form our own laws and trade and EU market access like in the old treaty.

Why the hell did the EU decide to become federalist in the first place?
Did they want to become an active competitor to the United States in terms of Power?

>MUH REAP THRATS

How predictable.

lmao, there's no escape from EU. Kinda feel bad for brits.

>So hmmm let me ask from reading this it says that these referendums are somehow tied to the Crown since its advisory in nature which is not established under law as part of the parliament?

no. in this case the referendum was made legal by:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015

however, that Act of parliament did not make the result of the referendum legally binding on the government so theoretically it could be completely ignored. it would be political suicide however.

more importantly however is the Act does not state what would happen if the result one way or the other.


the basic principle is that Acts of parliament can only be set aside by other Acts of paliament (i'm not sure if there's a non-statute based repeal mechanism).

the crown prerogative is a legal mechanism the government can employ to do a myriad of things - however, one thing it historically cannot do is undo laws enacted by parliament.

to make EU laws legal in the member states, local legislation must be enacted - in our case by parliament. triggering article 50 would dismantle a large number of these laws (in theory - a lot of them will stay in effect for decades). the court says 'hey, the government can't use the crown prerogative to trigger art 50 because they'll be bypassing parliament and there's no precedent for it in the constitutional law.'

p.s. there is no UK constitution like there is in the US. the UK constitution is a number of legal principles that have evolved over time and come from both legal precedent (courts) and acts of parliament.

Jesus, they still wear those stupid fucking wigs.

>English judges actually wear those retarded fucking wigs

lmao

>Being Brazilian and presuming to comment on human affairs

The sheer audacity. Aren't there moderators for this shit?

Time to kill off most judges in UK and USA

what's the deal with the House of Lords? why do you have a bunch of people that literally govern over you because they're rich or come from powerful families.

Is the joke that the USA works the same way?

lookie here cuck

>Did they want to become an active competitor to the United States in terms of Power?
yes

Rest in peace Scalia ;-;

Legality is not legitimacy, that is something to keep in mind. The one who is represented has spoken and the representer has to shut his mouth. If you ignore the people's will there is no reason to follow law any longer.

>to make EU laws legal in the member states, local legislation must be enacted - in our case by parliament
wrong, actual EU law is binding when EU decides it is, only guide lines and such must be enacted nationally

Better than looking at their bald heads

Please correct me where wrong, thanks for these insights legalbro!

So from what I can read and this document is laid out great with defined references a great treatise to learn about UK jurisprudence... that being said...

From reading it, it says that the 4 areas I forget the exact name, its alot of data to learn at once, gonna have to read it again. But these 4 areas have their own laws. Like you said the crown can not undo a statute, however for the crown to do that then the statute must exist in the first place. Reading your post then it seems that certain powers were ceded during the treaty however parliament has primary authority overruling anything from the EU should they see fit which is in the treaty right?

So is the crisis that these laws are not enacted by the local powers but enacted upon them through their treaty with the EU? However being that the treaty was enacted, is the high court saying that by being a party to the treaty than that treaty enacted local laws to govern the powers prescribed in the Treaty automatically? that is very interesting.

>there is no UK constitution
Read that about 1688 and the formation of the statute based system in the UK, allowing it to flow through time applying itself to the period but rooted in the principal of law.

Thats just not cricket lad