Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Supreme Court hears Brexit case

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:32 am

What might have happened if Cameron had done what he said he would do and invoked Article 50 straight away after the referendum?
Could they have taken the question to court and had it ruled that that action was unlawful? In which case, what would be the consequences?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby atticus » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:09 pm

We now know the ruling that the Supreme Court would have made if "they" had taken the question to Court. Any notification under Article 50 would then not have neen given by the UK in accordance with UK constitutional requirements.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby miner » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:10 pm

atticus wrote:8-3 (or as The Times has put it, unanimously 8-3) ....


Time for some Times journalists to invest in a dictionary .....

Devolved Parliaments have no say or veto.


That puts Wee Krankie firmly in her place once and for all. Unfortunately it won't shut that babbling windbag up, though, and she'll go on throwing her toys out of her pram.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby atticus » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:11 pm

That's the thing about windbags - they won't be quiet.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby miner » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:13 pm

atticus wrote:We now know the ruling that the Supreme Court would have made if "they" had taken the question to Court. Any notification under Article 50 would then not have neen given by the UK in accordance with UK constitutional requirements.


Interesting, though, that the decision of the Court wasn't unanimous and that there were 3 dissenting learned judges.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby miner » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:16 pm

atticus wrote:That's the thing about windbags - they won't be quiet.


Sturgeon's days as FM are numbered. My guess is she'll be out by the end of this year.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:15 pm

atticus wrote:We now know the ruling that the Supreme Court would have made if "they" had taken the question to Court. Any notification under Article 50 would then not have been given by the UK in accordance with UK constitutional requirements.

I wonder how that would have played out. Would (s)he have gone to appeal or got on with it? Would it have caused the crisis it was predicted to have caused and would we still be so keen to invoke it a second time?
Would the RoW ever stop laughing at our incompetent governance?
We will of course never know, but it amuses me to muse.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby tph » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:37 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:We now know the ruling that the Supreme Court would have made if "they" had taken the question to Court. Any notification under Article 50 would then not have been given by the UK in accordance with UK constitutional requirements.

I wonder how that would have played out. Would (s)he have gone to appeal or got on with it? Would it have caused the crisis it was predicted to have caused and would we still be so keen to invoke it a second time?
Would the RoW ever stop laughing at our incompetent governance?
We will of course never know, but it amuses me to muse.


As I have said before the UK government did not expect snow! Otherwise they would have set out everything in a bill before the vote which would have made the result binding.
I think if they actually done that and were more explicit in setting out our exit position in clear terms the vote may have gone the other way!
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby atticus » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:47 pm

User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:44 pm

Do we know if the claimants were awarded costs? Is there any estimate or guess at the total cost to the taxpayer?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest