High Court ruling on Article 50.

Political debate

Moderator: Admin

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby Mike Strand » 07 Nov 2016 10:13

Excellent research Rita. Thank you.

"Government" - look up the definition and it will cast a different light on how some folks are reading it.
Fight for what is right!
User avatar
Mike Strand
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 12:21
Location: Universal, Pafos

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby lofos-jan » 07 Nov 2016 10:35

I'd be interested to know what the in/out split was with the current parliament.

Jeanne
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way
User avatar
lofos-jan
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: 15 Mar 2007 08:53
Location: Lofos, Tala

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby Mr Patient » 07 Nov 2016 10:42

Mike- The Oxford English Dictionary defines "government" as :" The group of people with authority to govern a country or state".
I would have thought that was the current elected government under Teresa May? Unless the word is used in a more general sense, which I didn't understand it to be.
Mr Patient
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 06 Jan 2013 19:14

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby Mike Strand » 07 Nov 2016 12:00

From, www.parliament.uk

Parliament and the Government are different. They have different roles and do different things.

What is the Government?

The Government are the people we have elected to run the country. The political party that wins the most seats at a General Election takes charge of the Government for five years, until the next General Election.

The leader of the winning party is appointed as Prime Minister and chooses other party members to work in the Government with them - as Cabinet ministers and junior ministers.

List of government ministers [External site]

What is Parliament?

Parliament is there to represent our interests and make sure they are taken into account by the Government. The Government cannot make new laws or raise new taxes without Parliament’s agreement.

Parliament is made up of people we have elected and people who have been appointed. They sit in two separate Houses:

The House of Commons, where all the people we have elected at the General Election work, as MPs, for the next five years. This includes people in other political parties, as well as those in the winning party who were not chosen to be ministers.
The House of Lords, whose members are mostly appointed for life rather than elected. They have often been chosen because of their achievements and experience. Many do not belong to a political party.

Government ministers also have seats in Parliament but most of their work is done in Government departments.

Lists of members of both Houses

What does the Government do?

The Government is responsible for deciding how the country is run and for managing things, day to day. They set taxes, choose what to spend public money on and decide how best to deliver public services, such as:

the National Health Service
the police and armed forces
welfare benefits like the State Pension
the UK’s energy supply

While many government powers have been delegated to the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only the UK Government can speak on behalf of the UK and represent us abroad.

More about the day to day work of the Government can be found on the Government website [External site]

What does Parliament do?

Parliament’s job is to look closely at the Government’s plans and to monitor the way they are running things.

Parliament works on our behalf to try to make sure that Government decisions are:

open and transparent – by questioning ministers and requesting information
workable and efficient – by examining new proposals closely and suggesting improvements, checking how public money is being spent and tracking how new laws are working out in practice
fair and non-discriminatory – by checking that they comply with equalities and human rights laws and by speaking up on behalf of affected individuals

Members of both Houses of Parliament can speak up for us if a government department or agency treats us unfairly.

Government ministers are required to come to Parliament regularly to answer questions, respond to issues raised in debates and keep both Houses informed of any important decisions they take. In this way, Parliament can hold the Government to account for its actions.
Fight for what is right!
User avatar
Mike Strand
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 12:21
Location: Universal, Pafos

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby Mr Patient » 07 Nov 2016 13:18

Mike- Thank you for your post. I did misunderstand the term "government", but i'm here to learn!!
Mr Patient
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 06 Jan 2013 19:14

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby rita sherry » 07 Nov 2016 18:07

Shelagh, Mr Patient and Mike

Thank you very much for your kind words - much appreciated

Shelagh - twas rather a daunting task but had something of an advantage over you - Constitutional Law was one of my degree subjects so spent many happy hours ( :)) :)) wading through Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation.

Mike - The second paragraph of "What is Government" is not, in my opinion, strictly correct. The leader of the winning party is not appointed PM - he or she is invited by the Monarch under the Monarch's sole prerogative to form a Government, I agree the leader or deputy leader (should the leader have resigned etc) is normally invited but there have been exceptions in the past when someone has been by passed- Rab Butler springs to mind.

Jeanne (Lofus-Jan) I dont believe Parliament had a vote on the in or out question. They voted on the issue of whether to hold a Referendum and the result was 6 to 1 in favour agreeing that whatever the decision of the people they would accept it MPs of all parties, with the possible exception of the SNP, appear to be supporting the decision of the people it is the detail of the terms under contention. We shall all see.

Rita
It doesn't matter who one is, what one's name is, your a person
rita sherry
 
Posts: 521
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 14:47
Location: now Tala

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby dcoombes » 09 Nov 2016 20:03

rita sherry wrote: I dont believe Parliament had a vote on the in or out question. They voted on the issue of whether to hold a Referendum and the result was 6 to 1 in favour agreeing that whatever the decision of the people they would accept it MPs of all parties, with the possible exception of the SNP, appear to be supporting the decision of the people it is the detail of the terms under contention. We shall all see.

Rita


So does that mean that they intend to accept the decision of the people unless they don't like the details, in which case they won't accept the decision of the people?

Dave.
dcoombes
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 09 May 2007 12:49
Location: Bucks and Λατσι

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby Mike Strand » 09 Nov 2016 20:49

You could say that the referendum was a consultation document for MP's to listen and then make the right decision for the whole of the UK, not just for 52% of it/
Fight for what is right!
User avatar
Mike Strand
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 12:21
Location: Universal, Pafos

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby dcoombes » 10 Nov 2016 00:26

You can argue forever about the legalities of this but look instead at the practicalities.

The referendum asked the simple question, "LEAVE or REMAIN" with no conditions or provisos attached, and the will of The People -- democratically expressed -- was "LEAVE".

The Government and Parliament are not bound by this result -- but they will soon have to show whether or not they are prepared to carry out the will of The People.

If any MP wants to argue about terms and conditions, and then use this as a reason to prevent the triggering of Article 50 then they (individually) are displaying contempt for the will of The People. If enough of them do this then that will trigger a General Election and most of those who are seen to have blocked Article 50 will not be re-elected.

Do you think any MP is principled enough to commit electoral suicide?

Assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court then Mrs. May will carry on as normal. When she's ready to trigger Article 50 she will call an emergency debate to demand that Parliament gives the O.K. and she will make the outcome a "vote of confidence" in The Government.

600+ MPs will spend the next three days poncing about making verbose statements, points of principle and disagreeing about "the details" for various arcane reasons and then, when the Division Bell rings, they will look to their wallets and vote it through.

Never, ever forget "An MPs job is to get re-elected".

Dave.
dcoombes
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 09 May 2007 12:49
Location: Bucks and Λατσι

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby keving » 10 Nov 2016 07:51

dcoombes wrote:You can argue forever about the legalities of this but look instead at the practicalities.

The referendum asked the simple question, "LEAVE or REMAIN" with no conditions or provisos attached, and the will of The People -- democratically expressed -- was "LEAVE".

The Government and Parliament are not bound by this result -- but they will soon have to show whether or not they are prepared to carry out the will of The People.

If any MP wants to argue about terms and conditions, and then use this as a reason to prevent the triggering of Article 50 then they (individually) are displaying contempt for the will of The People. If enough of them do this then that will trigger a General Election and most of those who are seen to have blocked Article 50 will not be re-elected.

Do you think any MP is principled enough to commit electoral suicide?

Assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court then Mrs. May will carry on as normal. When she's ready to trigger Article 50 she will call an emergency debate to demand that Parliament gives the O.K. and she will make the outcome a "vote of confidence" in The Government.

600+ MPs will spend the next three days poncing about making verbose statements, points of principle and disagreeing about "the details" for various arcane reasons and then, when the Division Bell rings, they will look to their wallets and vote it through.

Never, ever forget "An MPs job is to get re-elected".

Dave.



Your rant is totally wrong.

You say if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court, Theresa May will continue as normal.

That is balls.

If the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court she will most definately NOT proceed as she intended; she will have regard to the law.
keving
 
Posts: 2572
Joined: 21 Sep 2012 20:55

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby dcoombes » 10 Nov 2016 08:36

Kevin,

I'm not ranting: I'm describing what I think will happen.

You are quite right -- she will have to obey the law, which means asking Parliament to vote to invoke Article 50.

The key point is that all she has to do is make it clear that a "NO" vote, or an abstention, is an expression of "No Confidence" in the Goverment and that will allow her to call a General Election.

Then MPs will do what they always do and vote for self-preservation.

Dave.
dcoombes
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 09 May 2007 12:49
Location: Bucks and Λατσι

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby Tallulah Savage » 10 Nov 2016 09:51

This article was forwarded to me by an Aussie friend who thought I and others would find it interesting. For me, it sums up rather neatly the attitude of many Remainers, not all of course ;-)

The Intellectual Yet Idiot
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities. Full article here: https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intelle ... .p17ub3ond
Allan, or hey fabulous guy, I answer to both!
Tallulah Savage
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 15:40
Location: Peyia

Re: High Court ruling on Article 50.

Postby dcoombes » 09 Dec 2016 12:29

And so it came to pass...
dcoombes
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 09 May 2007 12:49
Location: Bucks and Λατσι

Previous




Return to Political debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest