• Brexit: High Court to rule if referendum vote ‘void’ after Arron Banks case
    23 replies, posted
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-void-high-court-ruling-arron-banks-investigation-when-december-christmas-a8649001.html The High Court will rule as early as Christmas whether Brexit should be declared “void”, in a legal case given a turbo-boost by the criminal investigation into Leave funder Arron Banks. Judges are poised to fast track the potentially explosive challenge, after Theresa May’s refusal to act on the growing evidence of illegality in the 2016 referendum campaign, The Independent can reveal. Lawyers describe that failure as “absolutely extraordinary” – given the National Crime Agency’s (NCA) probe into suspicions of “multiple” criminal offences committed by Mr Banks and the Leave.EU campaign. Now The Independent understands the case is likely to move to a full hearing and a ruling within weeks of opening on 7 December, with the clock ticking on the UK’s departure from the EU next March.
If this stops Brexit I'll be home by next Christmas. Tories/UKIP get out, you slimy fucks can come live in the US if you like this shit so much.
I thought they couldn't roll it back as it wasn't legally binding?
Go on, stop this madness so we can start the new year a little more hopeful for a change.
woa election laws actually have teeth? Imagine if the SCOTUS had the balls to toss an election because one candidate's campaign visciously conspired to break the law.
Throwing out elections because of cheating would mean more D's win. Can't have that
the courts can't just declare an act of parliament illegal because of some skullduggery (regardless it wasn't even leave.eu but Vote Leave that was important in getting the votes). parliament is supreme and britain is already suffering from a lack of political stability (given the multiple elections in a short few years). if the courts actually had the balls to declare brexit null and void it would create a massive constitutional crisis and cause widespread riots and major protests.
between the feelings of some easily influenced sheep vs the actual truth I know which one i'd pick
They can declare the referendum was conducted illegally and the result null and void. However because it was an advisory referendum, it was actually a political decision to go ahead with Article 50 and I don't think the Judiciary can compel the Government to withdraw it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY
While I am thrilled by these news, it seems only the Independent is mentioning this development? Is any other source talking about it?
but you're inviting the breakdown of the political system by this. any chaos caused by brexit would be made ten times worse if the courts went ahead and reversed it (despite the government having the full legal right to do so) like a lot of people here seem to be wanting. even if the courts tried it, parliament would simply overrule it (because it has the superior authority on this matter) the courts have literally zero authority to do this. article 50 itself does NOT need to be triggered by having a referendum or an election (it can happen anytime). the referendum itself WASN'T LEGALLY BINDING. even if it was (which it isn't), there is nothing that could stop the government or any future governments from triggering article 50 (the EU says that the procedure is to be handled internally by the respective nation) whenever it wants and for whatever reason. the government has the right to trigger article 50 how and when it likes it. even if the referendum returned a 80% leave result, the british government would still have the legal right to reject it and not trigger article 50. the sole thing you would achieve by this idiocy is to promote political instability and likely violence given that people would protest in large numbers. it would spark a constitutional crisis between parliament and the judiciary too, which wouldn't end well.
Calling an unwarranted referendum on the EU by Cameron created political instability. Doubling down on a "non-binding" result created more political instability. Wanting to really fucking nail it in that there isn't a legitimate mandate to force through a shit deal that's going to fuck over Britain for an unknown amount of decades is not going to create any more instability that has been unnecessarily created. The Tories are wanting to stick this through, even with the revelation of both boris Johnson and this twat illegally funding the leave campaigns, because they need to save face. They'll not be elected for a decade if they piss this about. They caused this entire malarkey, they pressed on even when there was no cause for it, and are now pressing on even when campaign finance violations have occurred. Think we should mitigate the damage, no?
you are forgetting that there are ways of stopping brexit without having to get the courts involved here it's singularly just about the worst possible way you could do it
I'm sorry how do we stop Brexit, in your opinion?
you don't fix mistakes by doing stupid things
I'm not going to argue against any of the specific claims in this post but I feel like if you step back and take a moment to consider the context this is crazy. A motion to leave the EU passed by referendum but is having difficulty actually being put into practice because literally nobody who isn't an idealogue who personally benefits from it actually thinks it's a good idea, but we have to go through it with because it's the will of the people. Then it turns out that the side that campaigned to leave the EU might have done something illegal and voided the referendum result but we shouldn't actually do anything about that because if we do it might hurt this exit that no one wants, and if it does people will riot in the streets. Like holy shit, American politics is a disaster right now but this is actually insane.
The courts aren't here to mitigate the damage of Parliament, the Parliament is sovereign. You certainly can't get the referendum itself to be declared illegal or invalid, simply the campaign process, but I doubt its original creation nor result will be decided at all by this court.
that doesn't answer his question, what do you propose Fucking mobile formatting, agh. The courts can't step in and say "stop Brexit", but if they can officially say that the result is void, then that gives backbenchers and other officials an entirely valid rebuttal to the whole "will of the people" BS, which as far as I can tell is currently the only reason we're going ahead with this crap.
his question is stupid and irrelevant (i am talking about the legality of the courts overturning it, not how to stop it) i'm not here to propose how to stop brexit or change it, because i don't know how to im here to point out that having the courts overturn the decisions of the executive is a place it has no business getting involved in. it is not illegal for the british government to trigger article 50 no matter the circumstances behind the decision. the various actors in the leave campaign who broke the law can be prosecuted if found guilty by the courts, but this doesnt give them the right to do what is being suggested in the article and posters here: "Ewan McGaughey, a senior law lecturer at King’s College London, has written: “The order by the prime minister to trigger Article 50 and negotiate to leave the EU could be declared void." the only authority in the british isles with the legal authority to stop brexit is parliament, so go bother them on stopping it
This failed today btw https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-high-court-case-legal-challenge-referendum-vote-leave-spending-theresa-may-eu-a8676226.html
No, I don't think parliaments are sovereign from the people or the nation.
I didn't say parliament is sovereign from the people. An act of parliament cannot be questioned by the courts. That is how Parliamentary sovereignty works.
now you see tory, brexit only works if you're not britain.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.