PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Brexit,, Wilson V Prime Minister ( Dec 7th )
little-freddie
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 08:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 183
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
From: Mansfield
Member No.: 5,071




Ok, Leagle Eagles,... I've tried to wade through this,... simple question, Does this have wings?? Can it fly???


http://www.croftsolicitors.com/wp-content/...nt-of-Facts.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 08:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 09:17
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,271
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



I've got an idea: Why don't we keep replaying the Champions League final between Liverpool and Real Madrid, until Liverpool win. And then we can stop at that one and declare Liverpool the champions?


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 09:37
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,989
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Alternatively are the interests of democracy served by a holding the populace to a 2 year old decision if the 'facts' have changed/are now better understood such that sufficient have changed their mind such that a new referendum would give the opposite result? (I ask that as a question, I've no idea if it is the case)

As for the argument, no, IMO it does not have legs, governments do many things which are not directly tied to electoral promises but where it is necessary for them to make the relevant decisions at the relevant time. I'll use the Iraq war as a simplistic yet clear example of that.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 10:33
Post #4


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,176
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



It's interesting to see the sudden enthusiasm among Remain supporters for referendums. We didn't have a referendum before the government of the day took us into the EEC, we didn't have referendums on any of the Treaties since which have transformed the EEC into the EU, and for decades politicians of all parties had studiously avoided offering the electorate any vote on leaving the EU until Dave screwed up his calculations. I have little doubt that referendums would immediately fall out of favour again if they get their way and reverse the People's Brexit Vote™. smile.gif


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 11:13
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,612
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 10:33) *
It's interesting to see the sudden enthusiasm among Remain supporters for referendums. We didn't have a referendum before the government of the day took us into the EEC, we didn't have referendums on any of the Treaties since which have transformed the EEC into the EU, and for decades politicians of all parties had studiously avoided offering the electorate any vote on leaving the EU until Dave screwed up his calculations. I have little doubt that referendums would immediately fall out of favour again if they get their way and reverse the People's Brexit Vote™. smile.gif


We did have one in 1975 not long after we joined the EEC.
Said yes to remaining and been dragged along ever since until 2016.
Concur fully BTW, if another referendum showed remain on top, we can look forward to another 40 years without a sniff of one
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:02
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,277
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:13) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 10:33) *
It's interesting to see the sudden enthusiasm among Remain supporters for referendums. We didn't have a referendum before the government of the day took us into the EEC, we didn't have referendums on any of the Treaties since which have transformed the EEC into the EU, and for decades politicians of all parties had studiously avoided offering the electorate any vote on leaving the EU until Dave screwed up his calculations. I have little doubt that referendums would immediately fall out of favour again if they get their way and reverse the People's Brexit Vote™. smile.gif


We did have one in 1975 not long after we joined the EEC.
Said yes to remaining and been dragged along ever since until 2016.
Concur fully BTW, if another referendum showed remain on top, we can look forward to another 40 years without a sniff of one

In Wales each local government area could potentially have a referendum on whether the pubs opened on Sundays. The vote could be held every seven years & was triggered by a petition of 500 local electors. Perhaps a similar opportunity to have a rethink should apply to any referendum?


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:29
Post #7


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,176
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:02) *
In Wales each local government area could potentially have a referendum on whether the pubs opened on Sundays. The vote could be held every seven years & was triggered by a petition of 500 local electors.

Not really suitable for things like Scottish independence or Brexit where you can't pop in and out every 7 years, is it though? IMO a better solution for constitutional issues like those would be a requirement for some kind of super-majority, maybe like a 2/3 majority being required to change the status quo. Unfortunately we seem to have an aversion to a proper constitution in this country, with TPTB preferring something more along the lines of guidelines and good manners to constrain them.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:41
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,277
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:29) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:02) *
In Wales each local government area could potentially have a referendum on whether the pubs opened on Sundays. The vote could be held every seven years & was triggered by a petition of 500 local electors.

Not really suitable for things like Scottish independence or Brexit where you can't pop in and out every 7 years, is it though? IMO a better solution for constitutional issues like those would be a requirement for some kind of super-majority, maybe like a 2/3 majority being required to change the status quo. Unfortunately we seem to have an aversion to a proper constitution in this country, with TPTB preferring something more along the lines of guidelines and good manners to constrain them.

Normally important constitutional changes in companies, trades unions or countries require some definitive extra hurdle to ensure that the result is carried by a convincing majority rather than as in the case of Brexit by a minority of the electorate.

The Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 had a "yes" vote of over 50% but did not meet the extra requirement that 40% of the total electorate voted 'Yes' so was not carried. The 1997 devolution referendum had no such 40% rule but the vote was carried by an overwhelming majority of more than 70% of voters & over 40% of the electorate. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum was to be decided on a simple majority & the "No" vote won by a decisive margin of over 10%.

Those eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum included all UK EU & Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland over the age of 16. It's interesting to speculate what the result ofthe EU referendum would have been if held under similar rules of eligibility.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:54
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,612
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:41) *
...........Those eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum included all UK EU & Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland over the age of 16. It's interesting to speculate what the result ofthe EU referendum would have been if held under similar rules of eligibility.


The decision to include 16 year olds was IMO a ploy to stack the vote, the belief was that more youngsters would be swayed by patriotic and anti England rhetoric.
Personally I have doubts over letting anyone vote whose opinions are being formed from social media. Twitface and the like.
Mind you, I also have doubts over those who form opinions from reading one newspaper, website or the 6 O Clock news on TV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 14:25
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,277
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:41) *
...........Those eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum included all UK EU & Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland over the age of 16. It's interesting to speculate what the result ofthe EU referendum would have been if held under similar rules of eligibility.


The decision to include 16 year olds was IMO a ploy to stack the vote, the belief was that more youngsters would be swayed by patriotic and anti England rhetoric.
Personally I have doubts over letting anyone vote whose opinions are being formed from social media. Twitface and the like.
Mind you, I also have doubts over those who form opinions from reading one newspaper, website or the 6 O Clock news on TV.

Around a million voters have died since the EU referendum & chances are that the majority of those will have voted "Leave" as they will have been over 65.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 14:55
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,011
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 10:33) *
It's interesting to see the sudden enthusiasm among Remain supporters for referendums. We didn't have a referendum before the government of the day took us into the EEC, we didn't have referendums on any of the Treaties since which have transformed the EEC into the EU, and for decades politicians of all parties had studiously avoided offering the electorate any vote on leaving the EU until Dave screwed up his calculations. I have little doubt that referendums would immediately fall out of favour again if they get their way and reverse the People's Brexit Vote™. smile.gif

I'm not much of a supporter of referendums, but even if I were, I would not be a supporter of advisory referendums. But I also note that no additional referendum is necessary to put a stop to the whole sorry Brexit farce: all that would require would be for Parliament to do its ******* job. Sadly, it appears that Parliament will not do that without holding a new referendum, so I reluctantly support a new (advisory) referendum on the "deal" the UK government manages to agree with the European Union (if any). (If it helps, I would also support a "binding" referendum to settle this matter, but I'm not sure how that would work in a system in which Parliament is supposed to be sovereign.)

However, this judicial review attempt to reverse Brexit doesn't seem very convincing to me, nor is it the way I would like to see Brexit reversed.

1. Let's see "the deal".
2. Let's vote on it.
3. Let's live with it.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 15:00
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,989
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



About 78% would be over 65 and of those about 64% voted leave, so perhaps not as decisive as you think. (sources ONS and YouGov).

Also you can't predict whether as people age they change their position to match those who were previously in that age band.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 15:01


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 16:05
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,277
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 16:00) *
About 78% would be over 65 and of those about 64% voted leave, so perhaps not as decisive as you think. (sources ONS and YouGov).

Also you can't predict whether as people age they change their position to match those who were previously in that age band.

That's true otherwise the Tory party would have run out of members long ago. However I did see the other day that the SNP now have more members than the Tory party so perhaps the decline is happening.

Chances are that all those 16 & 17 year olds who missed out on voting last time would now vote "Remain"


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 17:00
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,205
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 14:55) *
I'm not much of a supporter of referendums, but even if I were, I would not be a supporter of advisory referendums. But I also note that no additional referendum is necessary to put a stop to the whole sorry Brexit farce: all that would require would be for Parliament to do its ******* job. Sadly, it appears that Parliament will not do that without holding a new referendum

I concur.

We are supposed to rely on our elected representatives to do what's best according to their own beliefs and assessments. That's what a representative democracy is all about. But too many who KNOW that Brexit is a bad idea are craven to a vociferous minority rabble or more interested in their own climb up the greasy pole (e.g. Jeremy Hunt among others).

I, too, am ambivalent about another referendum. You know full well that any such thing would be "manipulated" by the government to more-or-less force their view. We see it now, with a deliberate running down of the clock, so they can say the ONLY choices are the rather shoddy deal they come up with (which will please no-one) or No Deal (which is pretty much universally accepted as Not An Option).

I do think, however, that there needs to be some sort of say now we know much more than we did in June 2016. More than once I have accepted and started a new job, based on what I could find out at the time in the interviews, and then regretted doing so once I knew what the job really was. Same thing here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 18:33
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,703
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well the whole thing is misconceived for some very simple reasons:

1) International relations are non-justiciable, the courts will not interfere with such a political decision for the same reason that they will not interfere with a decision to go to war.

2) The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 is not qualified in any way. That Act gave the PM a power to invoke article 50 and that power would have existed even if there had never been a referendum, or indeed even if the result of the referendum had been remain (after all, it was only advisory).

3) Parliament has since enacted the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 (which is not mentioned at all in the documents, arguably in breach of the duty of candour), therefore as far as Parliament is concerned we are leaving on 29 March 2019 unless Parliament decides otherwise. For the courts to seek to quash the notification of withdrawal would be an attempt by the courts to usurp the role of Parliament.

Whether we should be in or out of the EU is a political question to be decided at the ballot box, it is not a legal issue. The parties currently in government were elected on a manifesto of taking the UK out of the EU.

Ultimately if people feel aggrieved their recourse is to vote for a party in 2022 that puts a commitment in its manifesto to have a referendum to take the UK back into the EU. If such a party wins a majority and the subsequent referendum determines the UK should re-join under Article 49, then so be it. Trying to subvert the political process with legal challenges however is just a sign of desperation.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 18:42
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,277
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 19:33) *
Well the whole thing is misconceived for some very simple reasons:

1) International relations are non-justiciable, the courts will not interfere with such a political decision for the same reason that they will not interfere with a decision to go to war.

2) The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 is not qualified in any way. That Act gave the PM a power to invoke article 50 and that power would have existed even if there had never been a referendum, or indeed even if the result of the referendum had been remain (after all, it was only advisory).

3) Parliament has since enacted the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 (which is not mentioned at all in the documents, arguably in breach of the duty of candour), therefore as far as Parliament is concerned we are leaving on 29 March 2019 unless Parliament decides otherwise. For the courts to seek to quash the notification of withdrawal would be an attempt by the courts to usurp the role of Parliament.

Whether we should be in or out of the EU is a political question to be decided at the ballot box, it is not a legal issue. The parties currently in government were elected on a manifesto of taking the UK out of the EU.

Ultimately if people feel aggrieved their recourse is to vote for a party in 2022 that puts a commitment in its manifesto to have a referendum to take the UK back into the EU. If such a party wins a majority and the subsequent referendum determines the UK should re-join under Article 49, then so be it. Trying to subvert the political process with legal challenges however is just a sign of desperation.

If the Leave.EU campaign is found to have been illegally funded that would certainly be justification for another referendum even if it didn't justify having the whole Brexit process reversed.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 19:08
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,703
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 18:42) *
If the Leave.EU campaign is found to have been illegally funded that would certainly be justification for another referendum even if it didn't justify having the whole Brexit process reversed.

Maybe, but again that's a political issue, not one for the courts to decide.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 19:35
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,989
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



As it’s a political decision it would depend on the level of overspend and how much impact that would reasonably have had on the result as to whether it arguably had a substantive effect in the output, it’s not like changing the result of a football match due to an ineligible player!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 07:32
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,205
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 19:35) *
As it’s a political decision it would depend on the level of overspend and how much impact that would reasonably have had on the result as to whether it arguably had a substantive effect in the output, it’s not like changing the result of a football match due to an ineligible player!

Those who bleat that the illegalities of the campaign had no effect on the referendum result are being dishonest in the extreme. If all the advertising spend, the social media manipulation, etc. makes no difference, why do they spend so much effort and money on those activities?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 12:24
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,989
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I didn’t say no effect, I said how much of an effect....


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 21st November 2018 - 14:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.