We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 314 comments are related to the topic:
Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict
Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 314
|
By:
ZEN
2 large eggs boil water place carefull in - SIMMER for 5 1/2 mins - toasted soldiers!!! salt and definitely a small spoon(not an ordinary teaspoon - something smaller - essential!!! slurp!!! |
|
By:
|
|
By:
if anyone is to blame its the governments fault for not making the referendum legally binding.
I hope wee nicky takes note for her indyref2 |
|
By:
some pretty squalid newspaper front pages today
about time these editors were warned as to the law of uk |
|
By:
Newspapers really have gone into epic meltdown, seeing it makes yesterday's verdict worth it alone
 Imagine what they are going to be like if Brexit was actually blocked permanently. |
|
By:
This whole Brexit lark is basically the blind leading the blind has been all along.
|
|
By:
as the government's case that they can repeal laws without parliament's authority was laughable
what were they going to repeal without going through Parliament ? |
|
By:
MPS last night accused judges of failing to read the £9million taxpayer-funded publicity leaflet that stated the referendum result would be followed directly by ministers.
Sent to every household before the referendum, the pamphlet stated clearly: ‘This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.’ Despite this, the High Court ruled the referendum was merely ‘advisory’ and could not be activated without Parliamentary approval. Former Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith said the leaflet had been ‘clear’, while Tory MP John Redwood said: ‘I cannot believe the judges failed to read the leaflet. Parliament was passing the decision to the people.’ - Daily Mail. It should also be noted over 500 MPS voted in favour of holding a referendum. Therefore the referendum had overwhelming parliamentary support. It's just the result they didn't like.. |
|
By:
most of the papers are right
we don't want a couple of foreigners and a bunch of europhile judges interfering in a democratic vote hope this helps |
|
By:
dave and the rest of his ilk just want the place full of foreigners
why do they hate the uk so much? |
|
By:
leaflets also claimed we would get an extra 350 million for health service per week
should the government be forced to enact that too ? the referendum act is clear about what these things are to decide still the gullible continue to read and quote the daily mail and ignore democracy |
|
By:
So if Theresa May's government negotiated a deal to leave the E.U and keep us in the single market with free movement of labour
you would be happy? |
|
By:
I'm quoting the leaflet sent my Cameron, the PM and leader of the Remain side.
As for the 350m promise, we haven't left the EU yet so who knows? |
|
By:
I hope wee nicky takes note for her indyref2
In Scotland the people are ALWAYS sovereign. |
|
By:
The leave campaign had no plan neither did the Tory government that is why we are here, had they had a plan
they would have lost the referendum as it would have been swiftly torn to pieces by the impossibility and credibility of such harebrained promises. |
|
By:
did it explain the referendum act ?
or could you have checked a few facts ? brexit will happen, and it will be legally binding as due process will have been done. had article 50 been triggered by may and then a challenge had been made afterwards we would be in a mess. it also stops these wannabe dictators seizing power in the future under the guise of royal prerogative. in time the brexiteers will celebrate yesterdays ruling but its taking time for them to grasp it. |
|
By:
It was a ruling on transparency to stop a Tory Diktat enacting deals to suit their own agenda that could be
totally at odds to what leavers voted for. |
|
By:
sadly it does not stop the tories enacting whatever deal they can cobble together.
they may go hard brexit, or soft brexit and there will be no further vote until next election. |
|
By:
paddy ashdown has just said he is the slave of the people
respects the will of the people - but.............. the usual small westmincing bubble in london who know what is best for those idiots in sunderland etc |
|
By:
we wanted to leave to stop more foreign interference in our country
now two foreigners backed by three eu supporting judges have just interfered yet again don't you just love it |
|
By:
1. We live in a representative democracy. The most likely interpretation of the pledge in leaflet was that MPs would respect the result and put their own judgement to one side.
2. You cannot rewrite constitutional law in a leaflet. 3. The noises from nearly all Remain MPs, is that they will respect the outcome of the referendum. 4. The judges' ruling is simply that you cannot alter UK domestic law through the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative is for international treaties. We enshrined EU law into UK law, through ECA 1972, so you cannot use it. Changes to domestic law have to be put through parliament. If you think the government can change domestic law without putting it through parliament, you will find that you are advocating a dictatorship. It's seems extremely unlikely that the appeal will be successful. 5. Had the government wanted to make the referendum result binding, they would have passed a bill prior to the outcome of the referendum allowing it. 6. The right wing press are a f*cking disgrace on this issue. Deliberately failing to explain it properly and pandering to the unjustified fears of those who don't understand it. UKIP are behaving like the self-righteous brothers from Harry Enfield - getting very shouty about things that aren't going to happen. |
|
By:
Who owns The Sun hope it's not a Foreigner trying to interfere in our politics.
|
|
By:
they have sold a few papers today on the back of posturing
shame on them |
|
By:
There was a bill passed through parliament to make the referendum result binding.
|
|
By:
bill clinton ?
if in doubt make it up lfc  |
|
By:
Even swivel-eyes like John Redwood realised that there would be issues with Art. 50 he suggested that the leaving route should be that parliament would repeal the ECA 1972 (but while constitutionally valid there are many other issues with this).
|
|
By:
Invoking Article 50 does not "repeal" (your word) anything. Repeal of the ECA 1972 is planned via the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" which would be invoked as we actually exit the EU.
|
|
By:
summary of the European Union referendum act 2015..
A bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. |
|
By:
This Bill was passed through Parliament and the Lords.
|
|
By:
Degs I cba arguing with you - read the judgement and the comments in the press written by adults.
|
|
By:
show us the bit where it states this referendum will be legally binding !
hint dont bother cos you wont find it, because it wasnt included. |
|
By:
jesus lfc
it is crystal clear that the referendum was not legally binding. |
|
By:
Once that bill was passed through parliament it was by definition in and off itself legally binding.
this is the case with all bills passed by parliament. they do not state that they are legally binding, they are legally binding simply by the very process and nature of parliament. bill do not state that they are legally binding, the are by their very existence and remain so until parliament should bring in a bill to overturn the bill. |
|
By:
stop making sh1t up and go and read this
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf read section 8 (105 through 108) |
|
By:
To simplify for Donny etc, once a bill has been passed through parliament, it is legally binding
For almost 500 years English law is what the English parliament says is the law. |
|
By:
lol
the bill to allow referenda is where you want to be looking this will show you where you are going wrong (The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41 |
|
By:
judges do not decide English law. The English parliament decides what is English Law.
This is what most foreign countries do not understand. |
|
By:
what foreign government are you lfc
|
|
By:
Those acts of parliament confirm what I have been saying.
|