B0ycey wrote:Without a manifesto there is no obligation in the referendum anyway. Even if I accept that the referendum wasn't advisory (which it is), it just says we must leave the EU. Not how or when. Perhaps we should wait until we get this deal we were promised before we leave right?
I agree that in this country, referendums are 'advisory', that doesn't alter the
fact that the two main political party manifesto's are in agreement, to honour the referendum results, as you put it, to
leave.
They have instigated that implementation, but not completed it, by A50.
You are correct about the 'how or when', to a point, that point was stretched to the umpteenth degree when A50 was extended, because that extension is about 'kcking-the-can(leave)-down-the-road' in the mistaken belief that the remain parliament could frustrate that implementation, deal or no deal.
It is mistaken, because Treaties are a matter of inter-government, recognised in international law, they are not subject matters of a parliament, it therefore means that the 'no deal' ammendment in parliament is not law, because the Treaty as changed is not legally recognised, because it(W.A)is not ratified by parliament itself & therefore the status quo anti 'no deal' is the default legal avenue of exit from the E.U. as per A50.
Gina MILLER is set to challenge BoJo in the High Court over any attempt to invoke a suspension of parliament, that action will fail because her action is instigated on what she believes are BoJo's
intentions when he is elected as leader of the Tory Party & replaces Theresa MAY in her capacity as the next P.M.
It is not within the power of any court in the land to make any pre-emptive judgement on any issue before it, based on a complaint about any future action that is not subjected to the law, but which may be considered proper for parliament to do so when it is in session.
It is for a Minister to make or take such decisions as may be within there power to do so, for which they are then held to account for by parliament, a situation, following on from, which may result in the calling of a general election.
In that scenario, BoJo could easily win an election based on, 'who governs' the country, the courts, rich business people, disenchanted politicians, or the people's government, elected by them.
It is a fact, that since 1972, that whilst statutes have imposed parliamentary controls over the exercise of prerogative powers in relation to E.U Treaties, they have not touched upon the prerogative powers to withdraw from them & as long as ministers are acting within legislation or common law, as defined by the courts, they are doing nothing illegal, neither are they acting outside of the law by creating or changing existing law & everything being done is consistent with A50 so far..
The excuses made by Labour or the Lib Dems about the economic effects on jobs, standards etc, are political chestnuts, they are separate issues to be dealt with of their own accord as, if, or when they happen, according to project fear.
The case of the backstop with Ireland is another such chestnut, in terms of documentation relating to goods in transit, along with customs, are non-issues in the business sense, as such things are routine in commercial life.
It is purely for political reasons that the border is being exploited, no other reason at all, because as I have stated, business handles border issues everyday on routine trouble free basis, such 'obstacles' as there may be are raised intentionally.
Getting a 'deal' is empty rhetoric, neither the E.U or Jeremy HUNT would agree to such a 'deal' because the E.U have already stated that the W.A is closed through existing 'agreement'.
The last point is the crux of the matter, the fault of Theresa MAY, who signed on the dotted line to the W.A, for which she was entitled to do so, which she did, knowing that it would be refuted by parliament & being a 'remainer', it suited her to a 'T'.
That she was able to thwart the referendum result by signing that 'deal', exposes that convention as an exercise in undemocratic behaviour that should be changed, so that in future any P.M cannot sign Treaties before parliament has indicated that a P.M can do so.
- By Puffer Fish
- By FiveofSwords
- By Godstud