Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Kyriakos]

I'm not clear about what you are trying to say, K.
But a politician, even the PM, promising something in the media doesn't often carry
much legal weight, especially in constitutional matters.
I doubt that any public promises made before, during or after the referendum would
have even been considered by the judges. (Happy to be corrected, of course!)

I just mean that the legal issue is distinct from what the voters were told would happen if they chose "leave" (Cam triggering brexit/article 50 the next day). So it is a legal issue, but not one which casts itself less legitimacy on the referendum's meaning. I mean no one said "if you vote leave then mps will vote if they agree with you, lol" ^^

 

[Ferocitus]

Ok, understood now.

[QUOTE="Kyriakos, post: 14637986, member: 36763"I mean no one said "if you vote leave then mps will vote if they agree with you, lol" ^^[/QUOTE]
If they meant that they would have written it on a bus, or something.

 

[Takhisis]

I just mean that the legal issue is distinct from what the voters were told would happen if they chose "leave" (Cam triggering brexit/article 50 the next day). So it is a legal issue, but not one which casts itself less legitimacy on the referendum's meaning. I mean no one said "if you vote leave then mps will vote if they agree with you, lol" ^^

It's not as if those politicians had any idea as to whether what they were promising was something they could actually give.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The problem was that nobody had said, in law, what Britain's 'constitutional requirements' were. The referendum bill didn't say that the referendum would give the government the right to trigger Article 50, and the Supreme Court ruled that if it meant to do that, it would have said so. Anything short of that does not count as parliamentary approval. Parliamentary approval is essential to change or strike off laws - that's a basic part of the separation of powers - and they considered that the EU treaties are a source of law, and therefore the executive branch cannot revoke them without parliamentary consent, just as the Prime Minister can't unilaterally make or repeal ordinary laws

This seems like its another case of Britain's unwritten Constitution strikes again!

 

[Flying Pig]

This seems like its another case of Britain's unwritten Constitution strikes again!

I doubt it would have been simpler with a written one. After all, it's not as if the US headed off all arguments about what is and what isn't constitutional.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I doubt it would have been simpler with a written one. After all, it's not as if the US headed off all arguments about what is and what isn't constitutional.

I don't know. When it comes to treaty bound relations with other nations, the Constitution is pretty clear about Congress having the final say about that. Its why Trump can't just get the U.S. out of NATO on a whim & why he could remove the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership as it was technically still in the negotiating phase and not ratified by Congress.

Most of the Constitutional debates in the U.S. generally have a States vs Federal gov angle to them.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am not entirely surprised by the Supreme Court's decision that UK MPs must decide.

More significantly their judgement reportedly included declining claims from Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales; that each of them had to be separately consulted, agree and thereby have a de facto veto.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Staggering! The depth of your ignorance is just incredible.
Don't you know that the resistance to the invasion/occupation spanned nearly 200 years?

Indian independence movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement

The resistance you linked to refers to a moral, political and social struggle to the
takeover and subsequent rule, and not to a general war of independence.

 

[EnglishEdward]

England and Wales is one single entity.

The Welsh have their own law making National Assembly.

http://www.assembly.wales/en/Pages/Home.aspx

They even have their own language and rugby team.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The Welsh have their own law making National Assembly.

http://www.assembly.wales/en/Pages/Home.aspx

They even have their own language and rugby team.

And their own football federation, but "England and Wales" is a legal entity,. England and Wales are under the same legal code and all powers of the Welsh Assembly are devolved through E&W not the United Kingdom. There isn't an Act of Union that brought Wales into the UK, Henry VIII legally united the two countries. The only reason Wales (and Scotland & NI for that matter) appear in FIFA and other federated sporting events is more due to the age of the federations than Wale's international status.

 

[Arakhor]

The Bretons and Cornish have their own languages too. That doesn't say an awful lot.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The Bretons and Cornish have their own languages too. That doesn't say an awful lot.

The resurrection of Cornish is perhaps my favorite modern linguistic events.

 

[EnglishEdward]

And their own football federation, but "England and Wales" is a legal entity,. England and Wales are under the same legal code and all powers of the Welsh Assembly are devolved through E&W not the United Kingdom. There isn't an Act of Union that brought Wales into the UK, Henry VIII legally united the two countries. The only reason Wales (and Scotland & NI for that matter) appear in FIFA and other federated sporting events is more due to the age of the federations than Wale's international status.

Yes, I know that but the implication that England was the only part of the UK voting to Leave was misleading.

 

[Ferocitus]

The resistance you linked to refers to a moral, political and social struggle to the
takeover and subsequent rule, and not to a general war of independence.

The was no "general war of independence" because there was no united India as such.
There were dozens of wars, guerilla wars, so-called rebellions, and many other actions.
What do you think they were trying to achieve apart from the expulsion of invaders from
their land?

 

[innonimatu]

Fillon said he wouldn't take any more refugees, but beyond that and strengthening ties with Russia he doesn't want to destroy the EU.

How is Fillon's nepotism going to affect his popularity?
And do we have a thread about the upcoming french elections?

 

[AdrienIer]

How is Fillon's nepotism going to affect his popularity?
And do we have a thread about the upcoming french elections?

I was going to revive my thread from last month. I think Fillon is in deeeeeeep trouble.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The was no "general war of independence" because there was no united India as such.
There were dozens of wars, guerilla wars, so-called rebellions, and many other actions.
What do you think they were trying to achieve apart from the expulsion of invaders from
their land?

There were very few British invaders. In most instances it was mainly Indians fighting Indians.
Some Indians fought to defend the native Princes against the East India Company;
other Indians fought for the East India Company against those native Princes.

The East India Company directors and oficers liked to assume it acquired dominance because
it was better organised and they were therefore better and all that crap, but it is arguable that
it was only successful because the Indians were on balance so horribly treated by their own
rulers that on balance the most effective troops preferred to fight on the side of the British foreigners.

So in a sense, the Indians did acquiesce to British rule.

The term occupation is misleading. Much of India was never occupied by British troops.

 

[JohannaK]

I can't believe my eyes.

 

[Kyriakos]

There were very few British invaders. In most instances it was mainly Indians fighting Indians.
Some Indians fought to defend the native Princes against the East India Company;
other Indians fought for the East India Company against those native Princes.

The East India Company directors and oficers liked to assume it acquired dominance because
it was better organised and they were therefore better and all that crap, but it is arguable that
it was only successful because the Indians were on balance so horribly treated by their own
rulers that on balance the most effective troops preferred to fight on the side of the British foreigners.

So in a sense, the Indians did acquiesce to British rule.

The term occupation is misleading. Much of India was never occupied by British troops.

IIRC the second (or the first?) Indo-Sikh war was leading to a disaster for Britain, but a side of the Sikh betrayed the rest and so Britain won. I think it was the first war, and the latter war just was an easy affair leading to full annexation of the Punjab.

 

[aelf]

There were very few British invaders. In most instances it was mainly Indians fighting Indians.
Some Indians fought to defend the native Princes against the East India Company;
other Indians fought for the East India Company against those native Princes.

The East India Company directors and oficers liked to assume it acquired dominance because
it was better organised and they were therefore better and all that crap, but it is arguable that
it was only successful because the Indians were on balance so horribly treated by their own
rulers that on balance the most effective troops preferred to fight on the side of the British foreigners.

So in a sense, the Indians did acquiesce to British rule.

The term occupation is misleading. Much of India was never occupied by British troops.

You mean some of the Indian princes acquiesced to British rule. The people weren't asked and likely received no different treatment under British rule.

It's amazing that a Leaver can constantly bleat on about EU tyranny and the moral right of the British public to decide (and not Parliament), and yet be completely blind to the difference between the people's will and their rulers' in other cases. Little Britain, indeed.