So Brexit now needs parliamentary approval?

[flag of convenience]

Of course nothing to stop the incumbent being replaced by a pro remaining Tory, an election called and the likelihood of a Remaining win, putting an end to the whole sorry saga.

 

The instigators wanted no such thing as to leave. Purely for own political gain.

[Gbye grey sky]

We all know that the majority of 650 MPs do not support Brexit and are going to block Article 50. They are supposed to be there to represent the people not tell us what to do. The majority of the electorate of the UK told parliament what we wanted to do in June and 650 people out of 33 million are going to ignore that and do differently.

 

It it is a shameful day for democracy in the UK.

 

No matter what you (general you) voted, we should all be outraged by this turn of events.

 

Just because the majority campaigned for Remain it does not follow that they will block Article 50. In fact it is highly unlikely that they will. May campaigned to Remain and she is now enthusiastically backing Brexit. All will be mindful of their constituents views when voting.

 

This is about democratic oversight of the process rather than whether or not Brexit happens. Why have MPs at all if they have no say on issues as important as this one?

 

The referendum was about Brexit but from some commentary it sounds as though it was the call for a coup d'etat. A worrying feature here is how so many seem to be in favour of a dictatorship rather than an elected House of Representatives.

[northshorepom]

It it is a shameful day for democracy in the UK.

It absolutely is not. Democracy is about more than just popular votes; an independent judiciary that upholds the law regardless of executive or populist pressure is a key pillar of democracy.

 

In this case the HC has interpreted that there is no statutory or common law that says referenda are binding, indeed the opposite - changes to the UK's status in Europe must be voted for by Parliament.

 

No problem. I expect parliament will vote for triggering A.50, because regardless of what MPs campaigned for (unwhipped), they are very mindful that they must represent their constituents' views

 

If Parliament wants to change the law to make future referenda binding (and thereby diminish Parliament's authority) then that is perfectly possible - someone has to bring a bill forward for a "Referendum Act" or similar. If such law existed, the court case would have failed

 

No matter what you (general you) voted, we should all be outraged by this turn of events.

Only if you don't understand what democracy is

[newjez]

We all know that the majority of 650 MPs do not support Brexit and are going to block Article 50. They are supposed to be there to represent the people not tell us what to do. The majority of the electorate of the UK told parliament what we wanted to do in June and 650 people out of 33 million are going to ignore that and do differently.

 

It it is a shameful day for democracy in the UK.

 

No matter what you (general you) voted, we should all be outraged by this turn of events.

with great power comes great responsibility. You think you can tick a box on a ballot paper, and then you're done, democracy catered for? People died for our democracy and people die to keep it. Time for all you brickshitters and remoaners to get up off your arses and fight for democracy. Don't worry. You don't have to riot. You don't have to be a suffragette. You don't have to go to war. All you have to do is join your local branch of your favoured political party and ensure your member supports your view. What a load of bloody whingers. Get up off your arses!

[newjez]

 

Not panicking at all just more time and money being wasted , but hay it's only the tax payer picking up the bill

democracy doesn't come cheap. You could swap it for Putin though. Apparently he's quite reasonable.

[newjez]

 

Will probably ensure that either (a) nothing ever happens or (b) the agreed Brexit will be a wimpy half-baked plan and not really satisfactory to INees or OUTees.

welcome to democracy. Seriously, you've only just worked this out? But all reasonable people like me, who have their countries best interests at heart, and don't want to be made redundant again, will be happy. Edited November 4, 2016 by newjez

[BacktoDemocracy]

It was because David Cameron wanted to put it all to bed, not expecting that leaving the EU would win.

 

However since the referendum we've had the situation that the losers have tried their hardest to overturn the vote, but if it does get changed because of a legal technicality, I'm sure there will be a big furore. So can we now try to overturn everything we don't like, including sporting results? It would appear that democracy in the UK is dying.

Not a technicality, a fundamental tenet going back to the Magna Carta, Parliament is sovereign and must be consulted, the Conservatives have become so used to altering laws by using executive orders that they thought they could just do the same with a fundamental change to the country in the same way, well it appears not and it appears that it is clear in law, because if it wasn't the Law Lords would have fudged things and let the Supreme Court sort it.

The problem was created by Cameron being so eager to give his party what they wanted to shut them up that he just thought throw 'em a bone and then lets get on with screwing the country when we win, never thinking he'd lose so he never set the referendum up so that it was legally valid, if the remain side had won we would be here in the same place with the exit side maintaining Parliament should have the final say, so the fault is with Cameron who was too spooked by the likes of Rees Mogg and Redwood and wanting to keep all his mates happy that he did a sloppy job of the whole enterprise.

[VERYSTORMY]

Not a technicality, a fundamental tenet going back to the Magna Carta, Parliament is sovereign and must be consulted, the Conservatives have become so used to altering laws by using executive orders that they thought they could just do the same with a fundamental change to the country in the same way, well it appears not and it appears that it is clear in law, because if it wasn't the Law Lords would have fudged things and let the Supreme Court sort it.

The problem was created by Cameron being so eager to give his party what they wanted to shut them up that he just thought throw 'em a bone and then lets get on with screwing the country when we win, never thinking he'd lose so he never set the referendum up so that it was legally valid, if the remain side had won we would be here in the same place with the exit side maintaining Parliament should have the final say, so the fault is with Cameron who was too spooked by the likes of Rees Mogg and Redwood and wanting to keep all his mates happy that he did a sloppy job of the whole enterprise.

 

My view is that yesterdays ruling is certain to be overturned. I have read the entire judgment and think it is simply incorrect (the high court does get things wrong and poor judgments are not unknown). The reason being is that the article 50 trigger doesn't actually do anything. It is simply the means by which a government can give notice to the EU of its intention to leave. It doesn't mean the UK leaves on the use of article 50, just that the formal process can begin. As part of that process, there will need to be a raft of legislation passed and repealed and that is the role of parliament.

 

Article 50 is just one article in an international treaty governing an aspect of treaties. It is an essential part of the executives role to operate treaties and give notice under them all of the time - probably thousands of times a year and article 50 is no different. It doesn't change UK law in any way and is therefore of no relevance to parliament or anybody else. It could have been triggered in months ago and we would still be in exactly the position we are in today except negotiations would have commenced. The government has chosen not to commence negotiations yet while it get plans, teams and strategy in place, not just for the negotiations themselves, but for the huge amount of things that will need to be considered legally such as which aspects of EU law we may want to keep and which we can get rid of.

[bunbury61]

We all know that the majority of 650 MPs do not support Brexit and are going to block Article 50. They are supposed to be there to represent the people not tell us what to do. The majority of the electorate of the UK told parliament what we wanted to do in June and 650 people out of 33 million are going to ignore that and do differently.

 

It it is a shameful day for democracy in the UK.

 

No matter what you (general you) voted, we should all be outraged by this turn of events.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself ...as a whole the people of the u.k voted to leave .

Now the likes of nicols sturgeon are trying to block the will of the people .

Now if the vote had gone the way of remain ,would there have been this much fuss ? ...i doubt it

[Gbye grey sky]

Couldn't have put it better myself ...as a whole the people of the u.k voted to leave .

Now the likes of nicols sturgeon are trying to block the will of the people .

Now if the vote had gone the way of remain ,would there have been this much fuss ? ...i doubt it

 

Seriously, do you honestly think that if 48% had voted to leave the EU they would have gladly accepted the result. Farage was on record before the vote as saying that if the result was close (in favour of remain)there should be another referendum. The sad reality is that this issue has split the nation down the middle.

 

Nicola Sturgeon does not have a majority in Parliament but she is at least trying to support the will of her people (who voted overwhelmingly to remain -in case you have forgotten) which surely is fair enough.

[bunbury61]

welcome to democracy. Seriously, you've only just worked this out? But all reasonable people like me, who have their countries best interests at heart, and don't want to be made redundant again, will be happy.

 

Its not democratic ,it's a blocking tactic ,pure and simple ..

Those with their countries bed interests at heart ,voted to " leave " .

Why would you want to make yourself a director of a failing business ,like the e.u ?

Have a bit of self belief ...wheres your bottle ,and your pride in your country nj .

Never mind redundancy ,strike out on your own ,like I have ,and like Britain is about to..

We don't need the e.u

[Ferrets]

Couldn't have put it better myself ...as a whole the people of the u.k voted to leave .

Now the likes of nicols sturgeon are trying to block the will of the people .

Now if the vote had gone the way of remain ,would there have been this much fuss ? ...i doubt it

 

As a whole the people did not vote to leave, the leave vote, although a clear winner in the referendum was not 50% of the population.

 

To be fair I think the remainers who are commenting here are not talking about derailing the leaving, more that it is done in line with democratic principles, i.e. that MPs vote on it (we all think it will be rubber stamped anyway), but it does change the context of what a leave means.

 

There is a complete difference between a Hard and a Soft Brexit.....but how do we know what was voted for???

 

And if the vote had gone remain there would have been an almighty stink too.

 

Let's get on with leaving, but make sure it is done via Parliament and not backroom deals with the likes of David Davis and BoJo!

Edited November 4, 2016 by Ferrets
Spacebar not working

[VERYSTORMY]

As a whole the people did not vote to leave, the leave vote, although a clear winner in the referendum was not 50% of the population.

 

To be fair I think the remainers who are commenting here are not talking about derailing the leaving, more that it is done in line with democratic principles, i.e. that MPs vote on it (we all think it will be rubber stamped anyway), but it does change the context of what a leave means.

 

There is a complete difference between a Hard and a Soft Brexit.....but how do we know what was voted for???

 

And if the vote had gone remain there would have been an almighty stink too.

 

Let's get on with leaving, but make sure it is done via Parliament and not backroom deals with the likes of David Davis and BoJo!

 

It will be do e via parliament, but parliament has no place in triggering article 50. Parliament will have to pass laws and repeal others. But article 50 is just an international treaty

[Perthbum]

Of course they are trying to reverse the vote, there will be years and years of amendments brought by the remain side that will try and delay for the foreseeable future, anyone who does not realize this is either a complete idiot or some one who knows what is happening but goes on about democracy secretly hoping we never leave.

[Ferrets]

It will be do e via parliament, but parliament has no place in triggering article 50. Parliament will have to pass laws and repeal others. But article 50 is just an international treaty

 

Article 50 is more than that.

 

As was successfully argued, it's activation has the potential to remove rights from citizens, hence the need to involve Parliament.

 

I am a little too young, but after the referendum in 1975 was that then ratified by Parliament?? (Genuine question)

Edited November 4, 2016 by Ferrets

[Gbye grey sky]

Of course they are trying to reverse the vote, there will be years and years of amendments brought by the remain side that will try and delay for the foreseeable future, anyone who does not realize this is either a complete idiot or some one who knows what is happening but goes on about democracy secretly hoping we never leave.

 

Amendments to what?

[newjez]

Its not democratic ,it's a blocking tactic ,pure and simple ..

Those with their countries bed interests at heart ,voted to " leave " .

Why would you want to make yourself a director of a failing business ,like the e.u ?

Have a bit of self belief ...wheres your bottle ,and your pride in your country nj .

Never mind redundancy ,strike out on your own ,like I have ,and like Britain is about to..

We don't need the e.u

On yer bike

[BacktoDemocracy]

My view is that yesterdays ruling is certain to be overturned. I have read the entire judgment and think it is simply incorrect (the high court does get things wrong and poor judgments are not unknown). The reason being is that the article 50 trigger doesn't actually do anything. It is simply the means by which a government can give notice to the EU of its intention to leave. It doesn't mean the UK leaves on the use of article 50, just that the formal process can begin. As part of that process, there will need to be a raft of legislation passed and repealed and that is the role of parliament.

 

Article 50 is just one article in an international treaty governing an aspect of treaties. It is an essential part of the executives role to operate treaties and give notice under them all of the time - probably thousands of times a year and article 50 is no different. It doesn't change UK law in any way and is therefore of no relevance to parliament or anybody else. It could have been triggered in months ago and we would still be in exactly the position we are in today except negotiations would have commenced. The government has chosen not to commence negotiations yet while it get plans, teams and strategy in place, not just for the negotiations themselves, but for the huge amount of things that will need to be considered legally such as which aspects of EU law we may want to keep and which we can get rid of.

But I think that the issue remains that the referendum did not give the prime minister the right to act independently of parliament, that parliament must be consulted, as to whether that gives parliament the right to block Brexit is another matter, I think May may have been aware of how narrow a line she was walking with some of the statements she was making.

 

As the exiteers were so adamant about the supremecy of Parliament it seems a little perverse that they now argue that that parliament should not scrutinise the terms under which we leave, otherwise when will the country get to know under what terms we are leaving, when Theresa May and her 3 Musketeers leave the negotiating table and the EU tell us.

 

I think what the Court was saying was that this is a fundamental change to how the country operates and its relationship with the EU and is not simply the business of running the country where delegated powers are used to expedite the running of the country without Parliament having to vote on every variation to an act, although the extent to which the Tories have used this recently has led to a number of parliamentarians having concern about whether business done by executive orders has been done that way to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, so as they say the Conservatives have form on this point.

I do think that the way in which it is being done at present is undemocratic and dare I say there is a need for some of the campaign promises to be scrutinised in the cool light of day and it established whether they can be actually implemented, it does seem that we are being kept in the dark as to what the deal will be and there will be no opportunity to say that was not the deal we were promised until it is too late, surely that is the function of parliament to hold the executive to account and increasingly that is not happening. The prime example of that is Blair and the Iraq war, Chilcot this week highlighted how his cabinet failed to challenge his taking decisions without reference to cabinet or parliament, if we don't allow parliament to do its job then we lose the very thing the referendum was supposedly all about

[newjez]

 

It will be do e via parliament, but parliament has no place in triggering article 50. Parliament will have to pass laws and repeal others. But article 50 is just an international treaty

It depends on whether you interpret article 50 as an event or as a process

[newjez]

 

Of course they are trying to reverse the vote, there will be years and years of amendments brought by the remain side that will try and delay for the foreseeable future, anyone who does not realize this is either a complete idiot or some one who knows what is happening but goes on about democracy secretly hoping we never leave.

You need to put a little faith in the people running this country. How can you go so quickly from rapture to despair? There's a name for that.

[BacktoDemocracy]

Just seen this pronouncement by Suzanne Evans , a leadership contender for UKIP, "How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will. It's a power grab and undermines democracy. Time we had the right to sack them."

Sounds like it came straight out of a Jack and Jill Nuremberg speeches handbook.

Where do these people come from, frightening or what!!!

[VERYSTORMY]

But I think that the issue remains that the referendum did not give the prime minister the right to act independently of parliament, that parliament must be consulted, as to whether that gives parliament the right to block Brexit is another matter, I think May may have been aware of how narrow a line she was walking with some of the statements she was making.

 

As the exiteers were so adamant about the supremecy of Parliament it seems a little perverse that they now argue that that parliament should not scrutinise the terms under which we leave, otherwise when will the country get to know under what terms we are leaving, when Theresa May and her 3 Musketeers leave the negotiating table and the EU tell us.

 

I think what the Court was saying was that this is a fundamental change to how the country operates and its relationship with the EU and is not simply the business of running the country where delegated powers are used to expedite the running of the country without Parliament having to vote on every variation to an act, although the extent to which the Tories have used this recently has led to a number of parliamentarians having concern about whether business done by executive orders has been done that way to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, so as they say the Conservatives have form on this point.

I do think that the way in which it is being done at present is undemocratic and dare I say there is a need for some of the campaign promises to be scrutinised in the cool light of day and it established whether they can be actually implemented, it does seem that we are being kept in the dark as to what the deal will be and there will be no opportunity to say that was not the deal we were promised until it is too late, surely that is the function of parliament to hold the executive to account and increasingly that is not happening. The prime example of that is Blair and the Iraq war, Chilcot this week highlighted how his cabinet failed to challenge his taking decisions without reference to cabinet or parliament, if we don't allow parliament to do its job then we lose the very thing the referendum was supposedly all about

 

But that is just it. Article 50 itself does nothing. All it states is that under article 50, a member state can give notice of an INTENT to leave the EU. It doesn't mean we leave, it doesn't actually mean anything. It is an international treaty and the article simply says that under this treaty a member may give the other members a notice. There is in triggering article 50 nothing to scrutinize. All the article 50 trigger amounts to is a short - probably two sentence letter stating that in accordance with article 50, the UK is giving notice that it intends to leave. It is as simple as that. All it actually triggers is that negotiations can take place, and that is only because the EU have said they will not commence until then - in theory, and what could have happened is the government have given its notice of intent the day after the referendum.

 

There will be zero to scrutinize at that point. Likewise it is not reasonable at this very early stage to ask the government to put the details to parliament as 1, that would be incredibly stupid before going into negotiations and 2, there is no way of knowing what the deal will be until it is finalized which could be in many years time - article 50 says 2 years but extendable indefinitely. There will certainly be nothing to tell parliament in March as negotiations would not have even begun. May could tell parliament anything, but as it is not agreed with the other side, it is pointless

[newjez]

But that is just it. Article 50 itself does nothing. All it states is that under article 50, a member state can give notice of an INTENT to leave the EU. It doesn't mean we leave, it doesn't actually mean anything. It is an international treaty and the article simply says that under this treaty a member may give the other members a notice. There is in triggering article 50 nothing to scrutinize. All the article 50 trigger amounts to is a short - probably two sentence letter stating that in accordance with article 50, the UK is giving notice that it intends to leave. It is as simple as that. All it actually triggers is that negotiations can take place, and that is only because the EU have said they will not commence until then - in theory, and what could have happened is the government have given its notice of intent the day after the referendum.

 

There will be zero to scrutinize at that point. Likewise it is not reasonable at this very early stage to ask the government to put the details to parliament as 1, that would be incredibly stupid before going into negotiations and 2, there is no way of knowing what the deal will be until it is finalized which could be in many years time - article 50 says 2 years but extendable indefinitely. There will certainly be nothing to tell parliament in March as negotiations would not have even begun. May could tell parliament anything, but as it is not agreed with the other side, it is pointless

First thing they should do is apply for an extension - even if they don't intend to use it.

[Ken]

I am a little too young, but after the referendum in 1975 was that then ratified by Parliament?? (Genuine question)

 

Unlikely. The 1975 referendum result was to remain in the Common Market (which the UK had joined 2 years earlier) so the public ratified what Parliament had already done. Not really any point in Parliament ratifying that.

[Ken]

But that is just it. Article 50 itself does nothing. All it states is that under article 50, a member state can give notice of an INTENT to leave the EU. It doesn't mean we leave, it doesn't actually mean anything. It is an international treaty and the article simply says that under this treaty a member may give the other members a notice. There is in triggering article 50 nothing to scrutinize. All the article 50 trigger amounts to is a short - probably two sentence letter stating that in accordance with article 50, the UK is giving notice that it intends to leave. It is as simple as that. All it actually triggers is that negotiations can take place, and that is only because the EU have said they will not commence until then - in theory, and what could have happened is the government have given its notice of intent the day after the referendum.

 

There will be zero to scrutinize at that point. Likewise it is not reasonable at this very early stage to ask the government to put the details to parliament as 1, that would be incredibly stupid before going into negotiations and 2, there is no way of knowing what the deal will be until it is finalized which could be in many years time - article 50 says 2 years but extendable indefinitely. There will certainly be nothing to tell parliament in March as negotiations would not have even begun. May could tell parliament anything, but as it is not agreed with the other side, it is pointless

 

The two year period can only be extended if the European Council and the UK unanimously agree to it. If negotiations go badly the UK could easily be shoved out the door with nothing agreed.