High Court rules British Government can't trigger Article 50 without parliamentary consent!

originally posted by: 83Liberty
The EU referendum wasn't just about our 'opinion' like some are suggesting on here.

Otherwise what has been the point of the past year? The media has been dominated by the EU referendum, articles every day, the debates and advertising... all the time, effort and money used just to find our 'opinion'. Come off it.

I find it never-endingly amazing that so many people on ATS, where scepticism about propaganda being delivered via the mainstream media is meant to be the rule rather than the exception, strain at the media gnats and swallow the political camels.

The Daiy Mail: Edited by Paul Dacre, who has been running a campaign to scrap the Human Rights Act for nearly a decade, and frequently leads on supposed EU tyranny ("The Great Lighbulb revolt", "The Great Vacuum-Cleaner Stampede", etc).

The Daily Express: Owned by Richard Desmond, and tucked so cosily into bed with the anti-EU lobby that they had a weekly column by Nigel Farage and help back UKIP financially. The Express began campaigning against the EU when readership responded favorably to its 2013 campaign to stop Romanian citizens from entering Britain. His other tabloid, The Daily Star, has come so close to openly endorsing the BNP at elections as makes no difference. One of its journalists publicly accused the Express of running propaganda for the English Defence League.

The two papers above are both right-wing and have been in a circulation war for years, and compete to run the biggest anti-EU scare story on a regular basis.

The Daily Telegraph: A regular columnist of theirs was actually the leader of the official 'Leave' campaign. The paper climbed off the fence a week before the referendum when a market poll showed 69% of its readership were pro-Brexit. A nakedly cynical attempt to protect its troubled reputation and circulation.

The Sun and The Times: Both owned by Rupert Murdoch. He was once asked by Evening Standard columnist Anthony Hilton why he hated the EU so much. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice." I don't think this needs any further explanation.

Do you think these media outlets were interested in your views for any purpose other than manipulating them?

a reply to: audubon

Wow. Hope you feel better after that. So his views don't align with your own. Why the need for emotional colourful embellishment?

ETA.

He is one of the few writers who looks at the refugees and migrants as people (with aspirations) first rather than defining them solely by their circumstance. His recent article demonstrating the narcissism from both sides of the child-refugee argument was excellent.

a reply to: Morrad

What a weird remark. If you have anything to say about the information I've just posted, please feel free to do so.

ETA:

My remarks in the preceding post were concerned solely with the comments that I quoted in that post, which were about the media's relentless pursuit of a Brexit outcome and their non-transparent motivations.

a reply to: audubon

Apologies I misread you.

I agree with your post concerning UK news media.

a reply to: audubon

Sorry not sure what you are trying to get at here.
Are you suggesting that I got my information from these media outlets and they have somehow manipulated me?

a reply to: 83Liberty

My response was to these words:

Otherwise what has been the point of the past year? The media has been dominated by the EU referendum, articles every day, the debates and advertising... all the time, effort and money used just to find our 'opinion'. Come off it.

I was explaining what the 'point' of the media onslaught has been for the last year or so. You seemed to think the media were interested in finding out people's opinions rather than shaping them. I suggested that the answer was the other way round. I didn't say you had been personally manipulated, just that the media had tried to manipulate you along with everyone else (and yes, there is a big difference there).

a reply to: audubon

That statement wasn't just talking about the media.
I was talking about everyone's effort in the EU referendum.
From the politicians to the people out campaigning on the streets.

And when I said "just to find our opinion", I'm referring to the EU referendum vote, nothing to do with the media!
Hence why I started my post with...

The EU referendum wasn't just about our 'opinion' like some are suggesting on here.

a reply to: 83Liberty

Your post immediately goes on to say...

The media has been dominated by the EU referendum, articles every day, the debates and advertising... all the time, effort and money used just to find our 'opinion'.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a neutral observer might say that you were making a comment about the intense media coverage of the EU referendum, and saying that no such coverage would have been warranted if the Referendum's result was to be merely 'advisory' (which, incidentally, it was).

a reply to: audubon

I have already told you that you're incorrect in thinking I was just talking about the media, though I do see why you may have taken that view. But to break it down, this is what I was thinking at the time of writing...
articles every day = media
debates = politicians
advertising = media/politicians/campaigns
all the time, effort and money = everyone

Now let's not go off topic on such petty matters.

I'm fine with the MP's having another vote, as that's apparently legally required. Though they have to honor the people's instruction to leave the EU or things may get messy.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
I have already told you that you're incorrect in thinking I was just talking about the media, though I do see why you may have taken that view.

Just for clarity, I didn't think you were only talking about the media. I was just responding to that part of your remark. Perhaps I should have highlighted that section of your post at the time I quoted it, and saved us both a bit of bother.

Let me see now what could all these people involved in this case have in common
Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd is the founding member of the European Law Institute, which says it works towards the “enhancement of European legal integration”so it is obvious he would be pro EU.


As for the other three Alan Miller, Sir Terence Etherton, Sir Philip Sales all Zionist Jews so obviously they would want one of the most powerful and rich country's in the EU to stay in that Zionist Goldman Sachs run establishment.

originally posted by: zinc12
Let me see now what could all these people involved in this case have in common

What they have in common is that they are appointed judges who rule in matters of law that neither you, or I fully understand the massive intricacies of, and they were doing their job as part of the British Legal system which underpins our democracy.

They - unlike the politicians - appear to have done their job, and you wish to demonise them for it.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
a reply to: audubon

That statement wasn't just talking about the media.
I was talking about everyone's effort in the EU referendum.
From the politicians to the people out campaigning on the streets.

And when I said "just to find our opinion", I'm referring to the EU referendum vote, nothing to do with the media!
Hence why I started my post with...

The EU referendum wasn't just about our 'opinion' like some are suggesting on here.

But that is exactly the purpose of referendums in the UK Parliamentaty process. They have no legal basis to back them up - their only purpose is to garner opinion, to see the lie of the land (if you will).

I am actually staggered by the complete lack of understanding of our Parliamentary and legal systems exhibited over the last couple of days, not just here on ATS but from what i am seeing / hearing around me. Part of me is saddened but i have to confess that part finds it hysterical.

originally posted by: 83Liberty

I'm fine with the MP's having another vote, as that's apparently legally required. Though they have to honor the people's instruction to leave the EU or things may get messy.

It is nothing to do with the MP's having another vote. That is just how the media are trying to spin it.

The people have decided that we want to leave the EU. The judges have concluded that Parliament, not the PM, implements how that is acheived. Hard or soft Brexit are not even proper things, just something the media has been spinning. Instead of hard or soft it is actually Stay or Leave. Leave won so Brexit will happen, despite referendums having no legal backing. The reason for this is simple political expedience - you won't get re-elected to your seat if you ignore your voters.

What Parliament will discuss is what aspects of the EU to try and gain in and where they are prepared to lose out in order to gain in other areas. For example, despite media portrayals of a hard line from Merkel and Hollande, we are actually seeing noises come out from both Germany and France (pressure from internal business communitites) for good trade deals with a post Brexit Britain. What seems to have slightly buried by our media is that following this, the Government may be willing to still allow freedom of movement for EU nationals - so the barter has already begun, whatever media or anyone else says.

originally posted by: Flavian
But that is exactly the purpose of referendums in the UK Parliamentaty process. They have no legal basis to back them up - their only purpose is to garner opinion, to see the lie of the land (if you will).

Sigh. You guys are pathetic. Did you actually read my post? I even stated it was non-binding! But the purpose/idea of the EU referendum was... If we vote Stay, we stay in the EU. If we vote Leave, we leave the EU. That's also why we had all those doom predictions/Project Fear, as they were #ting themselves if we voted majority Leave.

a reply to: Flavian
LOL you don't need to explain it to me. I know exactly what the court ruling is about.
You said it has NOTHING to do with another vote! Yet I bet they will get another vote...

originally posted by: Flavian
I am actually staggered by the complete lack of understanding of our Parliamentary and legal systems exhibited over the last couple of days, not just here on ATS but from what i am seeing / hearing around me. Part of me is saddened but i have to confess that part finds it hysterical.

In retrospect, it seems to have been inevitable. The press have been playing up 'soft touch'/'loony left' judges for years and regularly slinging muck at them over purported outrages in lenient sentencing etc. The Murdoch press in particular has been emboldened by the fact that the Operation Elveden conviction of Anthony France has just been overturned on appeal.

So there was a 'crap judges' narrative already in play, and the Article 50 ruling couldn't have happened at a better time (for them).

originally posted by: neformore

originally posted by: zinc12
Let me see now what could all these people involved in this case have in common

What they have in common is that they are appointed judges who rule in matters of law that neither you, or I fully understand the massive intricacies of, and they were doing their job as part of the British Legal system which underpins our democracy.

They - unlike the politicians - appear to have done their job, and you wish to demonise them for it.

No they were not appointed to conduct this case, who appointed them? There is a reason why they have been called renegade Judges who wish to subvert the BREXIT, no one appointed them.


Jokingly the Judge who took it upon himself to open these proceedings has said he voted for BREXIT because he thinks it would be better for the country, yeah right! If you voted for BREXIT as he claims believing it is better for the country you would hardly start proceedings to block its initiation.

All the members of parliament already had their vote like we all did, why should they get to vote twice and if they all voted to stay in the EU effectively ignoring the majority vote of the public's would that be justice?

originally posted by: zinc12
No they were not appointed to conduct this case, who appointed them? There is a reason why they have been called renegade Judges who wish to subvert the BREXIT, no one appointed them.

What do you suppose Judges do? Work on a freelance basis, and cycle round the courts of London till they find an interesting case to barge into? Judges are recommended by an independent committtee, and appointed by the Lord Chancellor whose power is a delegated one from the sovereign. That is to say that the judges are appointed in the name of the Queen herself.

Jokingly the Judge who took it upon himself to open these proceedings has said he voted for BREXIT because he thinks it would be better for the country, yeah right! If you voted for BREXIT as he claims believing it is better for the country you would hardly start proceedings to block its initiation.

You would if you were appointed to strictly uphold the law, rather than your personal opinion. Which is what judges, with some leeway, are meant to do and what they generally do in practice.

All the members of parliament already had their vote like we all did, why should they get to vote twice and if they all voted to stay in the EU effectively ignoring the majority vote of the public's would that be justice?

Come on, this is so daft you can't really mean it, surely? Having a vote in the referendum is not the same as having a vote in Parliament. If you're presuming that an MP's vote outside parliament then binds them to vote the same way inside Parliament, then as soon as an MP has cast their vote in a General Election, they ought to retire because the rest of their votes can be taken for granted. But, obviously, it doesn't work that way.

Brexit hasn't been 'blocked'. What's happened is that the Government has made some extravagant claims about its powers and the courts have pointed out that the Government has to stick to the law. Is that really so sinister?