UKC

I wonder who the government will appeal to ? European Courts ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.

"This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the Brexit referendum and ministerial powers mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners argue this is unconstitutional.

The government is expected to appeal."

In reply to GrahamD:

No, it will leapfrog appeal direct to the Supreme Court (of the UK), missing out the Court of Appeal. This was on the cards from the beginning with both sides expected to do this if they lost.

In reply to RupertD:


Is that possible ? Obviously the structure has changed since I studied constitutional law - there was no Supreme Court back in the 80s - but I wasn't aware the CofA could be bypassed

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes. The conditions are set out in s12(3) and (3A) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969. In summary, the decision must be a point of law of general public importance or the decision must relate to a matter of national importance. This case meets those criteria.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes, they can appeal to the Supreme Court.

... Ever get the feeling that they're basically making all of this up as they go along? The whole thing is utterly risible.

In reply to RupertD:

Cheers - show how little I know. Or remember. Or studied.....

In reply to Clauso:


Shouldn't they just accept that they lost and stop moaning?

In reply to GrahamD:

You couldn't write it.

"Shouldn't they just accept that they lost and stop moaning?" - How'd you like them apples? Springs to mind.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

With the irony being that one reason a lot of people voted for Brexit as they wanterd parlimentary sovreignty, not unelected "dictators" telling them what would happen. Well now they've got just that*.

*not that Theresa May is a dictator, but still would have represented an unelected head of government making a descision without involving parliament.

In reply to Clauso:

I do remember a case brought by Norris (or Morris) McWhirter that challenged the joining of the EEC - didn't that decide that signing a treaty was an Executive Action and therefore not subject to parliament. I'll be very suprised if the SC upholds this decision.

Obviously the mistake was in Cameron promising a binding referendum on a complex subject just to avoid a schism in the tory party. Since the referendum was won on false claims, is the promise that it be binding null and void ?

Then again, if it did come to a vote, I wonder how many tory mps would defy their whip. It should be a simple decision - yes it would end their careers and destroy the party, but surely that's better than wrecking the country. Surely ???

In reply to Chris the Tall:


It wasn't binding, the referendum was advisory.

In reply to GrahamD:

The action was brought by campaigners for exit.!

In reply to ianstevens:


I know that, you know that, but nonetheless Cameron promised it would be binding. And if the SC decides that it is an executive action, May seems willing to comply.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Like the remoaners have?

In reply to FesteringSore:


Are you familiar with the concept of a joke?

In reply to ianstevens:


Yes, are you?

In reply to FesteringSore:

I feel you did not read this comment in the tone it was intended

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Fortunatley promises of a now-defunct politician don't make things the case legally. I was under the impression Cameron was referring the the referendum as binding in the sense that parliament would act as if it was under his premiership - which obviuously is over, although Mayhem seems to want to carry on this strategy - fair enough, its one thing that won the Torys the election.

However, these words don't actually mean anything in law, which is the realm of the SC as far as I understand it - surely today's descision will be upheld on appeal?

In reply to GrahamD:

I’m expecting some sort of Harry Hill fight scenario, brexit or staying in the EU, which is better, there’s only one way to find out….. FIGHT……

I’m assuming, we’ll have Farage vs. May or perhaps they’ll fetch Cameron out of retirement, a little like Rocky 4…

In reply to robal:

I'll have to see which way my MP would vote if it came to it: she is a Conservative in a strongly pro remain area who was personally a remainer pre referendum but seems to be towing the party line at the moment....

In reply to FesteringSore and girlymonkey:

Indeed

In reply to ianstevens:

Whilst I think Parliament should have the final say, I've got a feeling that the SC might decide this comes under the category of Executive Action (i.e Royal Prerogative) since it relates to a treaty.

This does not mean Parliament is by-passed - the MPs have the option of forcing a vote of no-confidence. All it takes is 20 or so Tory MPs to defect - it's not very likely but when you think about it, it's not that much different to them defying May over Brexit. It's not as if it will be a free vote, so if the govt is defeated, the consequences are much the same - rebel mps deselected, general election fought with the tories now pro-brexit.

In reply to GrahamD:

From the Guardian's website:

"One of the more flamboyant figures outside the Royal Courts of Justice was Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who turned up in a chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce. He helped fund the campaign challenging the government, though he is coy about how much he contributed.

“Whatever it was, it was worth it,” he said. Like others involved in the case, he insisted the case is “not about Brexit, it’s about who’s legally entitled to do it”.

Referring to the length of the hearing, he added: “It took three minutes to prove article 50 needs to be triggered by parliament not by the government. All the busybodies in the government saying it’s legally right, it’s a load of bollocks”.

He said the government’s appeal would be “throwing money down the drain”.

Mullin said he would contribute to the Supreme Court fund. “We’re on a winning horse, and a jockey doesn’t get off a winning horse.”

He dismissed claims by Nigel Farage that the decision might spark turmoil. “Why would you take any notice of Farage? He lied about £350m to the NHS, now he’s making himself busy about turmoil. We’re already in turmoil.”

In reply to FesteringSore:


Whooosh!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I think (my guess ) that there are quite a few MPs that were borderline remainers that would now support Brexit, and therefore will support the Government.
I don't think there are many(any )MPs that voted for Brexit that will have changed their mind.
(And of course there is the Turkey not voting for Christmas argument)

Therefore- with my Brexiter viewpoint, I conclude Brexiters would win any vote easily enough.
Bring it on, give them a vote (non binding of course as that might just put an end to the remoaning.

(Ok I know it won't

In reply to GrahamD:

As ever, nailed.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/this-is-tyranny-n...

In reply to GrahamD:

I don't understand the motives behind doing this, surly the choice has been made to leave the EU, it's now in everyone's best interests to make sure that happens as smoothly as possible and for it not to be drawn out any longer than it needs to be in order to minimises economic disruption.

Now there will likely be delays and all sorts of faffing about until we leave which will prolong the period of uncertainty before the change and harm everyone, regardless of how they voted.

In reply to Oceanrower:

This a good one as well http://newsthump.com/2016/10/18/man-who-demanded-sovereignty-of-parliament-...

In reply to Jim C:
My perspective is that the
1. Legally, the referendum was not legally binding, but see discussion above.

2. We voted on a binary choice - in or out.

3. Because no one, including many influential figures on the the leave side, thought that remain would win - nobody gave serious thought to what choosing 'leave' would actually mean/entail/look like in practice. So...

4. I do not believe it is 'moaning' to have a plan and one that does not decimate the UK economy, UK relations with the rest of world, and perhaps even the UK itself. It is called holding my elected representatives accountable. I elect them to ensure that the interests of the UK are looked after. Sometimes these dovetail with my personal views, sometimes they don't (as an example, I deplore the sale of arms abroad, I hate it. I hate the arms industry. However, I realise how much it is worth to the economy and how many people it employs. I would not strenously argue for an end to the practice until we have concrete and realistic steps in place to limit the damage to people's livelihoods). Ideology cannot prompt us to drive the country over a cliff edge. Fine, maybe leave is good - persuade me with evidence and persuade me with a credible plan that balances the needs of ALL the contituences of the UK.

5. This case has been about law, not politics. I am relieved about the result inasmuch as it demonstrates the government and the PM are not above the law, that parliament retains its sovereignty to some degree, that the vociferous views of individuals (in either direction) have to survive scrutiny under the laws of the united kingdom.

(Edited for spelling and clarity.)

In reply to Jim C:

That's what got us into this mess in the first place, though admittedly by referendum voters rather than MPs

In reply to Jim C:


Is this more magical thinking or do you think it's the rise in hate crime or the collapse of our currency that will have won over the ambivalent?


There weren't many to begin with!


You're right, the Tory party will almost certainly win a whipped vote on this. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have one, let's see which if any of them have the courage to represent their constituents ahead of their careers.
jk

In reply to Lord_ash2000:



In other words, one of the most important decisions in our recent history will come under scrutiny?

In reply to Jim C:



With my remainer viewpoint, you're probably right, and it wouldn't be right - even were it possible - for parliament to ignore the referendum result. However it will allow the shape of Brexit to be influenced by MPs, potentially avoiding a very damaging hard Brexit and arriving at a solution which probably represents something that the majority (remain + the moderate leavers) of the country would consider reasonable. Sounds like democracy functioning well to me. Though in reality it'll probably end up with an early general election.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


We have a non binding referendum that is, to all intents and purposes, a amrket survey


As smoothly as possible means sticking with the status quo as much as possible.


Well there would be that anyway. Now is as nothing compared with the uncertainty we'll face post triggering article 50.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Blimey. You've actually thought about this, haven't you?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm not at all sure Cameron had the right to promise that Parliament was no longer sovereign in that case. Parliament is sovereign in the present sense, even though there are serious limitations about binding itself.

I have not voted at any time for such a removal of sovereignty as the one alleged to have been granted by Cameron. I had to participate in the Referendum under protest as I had not agreed to abide by it anyway.

In Germany people have a vote as to whether a Referendum should ever be held in which the will people will be precedent over the elected representatives. This is not absurd as it is a vote that is taken earlier in a less emotive time before demagogues and liars can rouse their rabble in the substantive campaign.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Anybody wh studied history would be aware of some of the historic abuses of prerogative powers - Court of Star Chamber etc - there was a civil war fought over it

In reply to George Ormerod:

in the absence of delegation of parliamentary sovereignty parliament has been told that the country is undecided about staying in the EU. The vote was close enough to have been carried by electoral noise, transient mood swing or even immigrants who want to sever European ties in favour of their own relatives and friends outside the EU etc etc etc.

It's only right that our democratically elected parliament should have to be able to determine our future course.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I have a long train journey to and from work.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Well, clearly time well spent!

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Good post.

Yet the £ has already been decimated x 1.5 against the $.

I personally wish now that they would all stop playing party politics with this toxic issue, and work towards a pragmatic solution.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


No one thought Leave would win, perhaps?

In reply to winhill:

Good point! Obviously, now noting a few other typos, I didn't edit enough for spelling and clarity. Difficult, trying to work and do this at the same time.

In reply to wercat:


We are now in the era of post-truth politics, so it doesn't matter whether Cameron had the right to promise, just as it doesn't matter that the referendum was won on lies, it's the public perception that counts. Tory MPs could, if they had the courage of their convictions, prevent Brexit. But those that voted for Brexit would feel angry and cheated and are unlikely to go away quietly.

As far as I can see, the only way Brexit could be safely avoided is if a general election is called before the process is completed, which would then become effectively a second referendum, and thus overrule the first. But it would require a number of Tory MPs putting the needs of the country before their party and their careers, and that's unlikely.

In reply to Trevers:

What is really astonishing is that the government is going to appeal. A UK court upholds the sovereignty ofthe UK parliament-and the government wants to overturn that.

In reply to jkarran:

"let's see which if any of them have the courage to represent their constituents ahead of their careers."

I guess this is the same for a lot of labour MPs who are overwhelmingly remain but represent constituances who were very much out.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/76...

"The MPs - who make up nearly two-thirds of the parliamentary Labour party - all represent constituencies which voted Leave at last week's EU referendum."

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

yes, astonishing, given that one of the principal reasons for brexit was to 'return sovereignty' to the very parliament that our executive now think is their inherent right to bypass when it suits them.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Whilst I don't disagree , is there any inconsistency in wanting parliament to be sovereign and resisting attempts by parliament to hand over powers to the EU - which would be the effect of a failure to vote for article 50?

In reply to David Alcock:


I think you'll find decimate means x 0.9 (award for pedantry coming up).

Martin

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Why are you surprised that the executive wants to by-pass the legislature ? They are two different branches of the government, so it's not unusual for there to be conflict. In the US for example, there is complete separation of the two, such that no member of the cabinet can be a member of either house of congress.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
yes- if parliament is sovereign, then its parliament's decision, and cannot be overridden- else parliament is not actually sovereign. fighting for parliamentary sovereignty while at the same time trying to subvert parliament exercising that sovereignty looks like the essence of inconsistency to me...!

parliament should get a vote, and should decide what the outcome of that vote should be. i think the effects of failing to vote for the invocation of article 50 would concentrate minds, and i imagine that that would lead them to reluctantly vote for it; but if sovereignty is to be anything more than a dishonest soundbite, then parliament has to be able to vote on this- and this includes not voting for it, and facing the consequences from their electorate, and for the political system more widely.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

It's a bit more nuanced in the US - it was built to have 'checks and balances'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_...

What surprises me is not the power grab by the executive, it's the refusal to accept the result of a fair and balanced ajudication. It also surprises me that the Gov't made such an abysmal show in the first place - government lawyers were poorly instructed by ministers.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Ha ha - yet 3/20ths = 15%

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Amusingly, the ultimate authority is the ECJ until we actually leave the EU.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:



You mean just like the refusal of remainers to accept the referendum result?

( was it a Welsh Judge

In reply to Jim C:

Apples and oranges. Politics and law.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

..and this includes not voting for it, and facing the consequences from their electorate, and for the political system more widely.

Indeed, and whist the numbers of people voting either way is fairly close, the number of constituency seats that this would effect is , as I understand it, much more one sided.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Or maybe it was not won on lies , but lost on what was perceived to be scare stories.
Rather than leave winning it, I see it that remain grasped defeat from the jaws of success , Obama, Cameron, Carney , Corbyn and Osborne some of the main culprits.

In reply to Jim C:

Sometimes, Jim, I wonder just how much respect you have for the whole of our history and the hard-won evolution of parliamentary democracy (far ahead of any other country in the world). If you think there is a better system, can you tell us about it, please.

In reply to Jim C:


The referendum decided (however narrowly and mistakenly) what people were against. You need Parliament to decide and authorise what it thinks they are for.

In reply to Dave Garnett: The referendum was advisory. The majority of leave voters voted because of the lies of Farage, Johnson, The Scum. The Daily Fail etc. Why should the government act on the will of the people, if the 'politicians' and 'media' knowingly lied. The referendum should be null and void.

What happened was akin to an athlete taking drugs, winning a race and then being found out. They would be stripped of their titles. The referendum result should be ignored by the unelected government. But it won't as it serves their own political aspirations, not the good of the country.

Andy F

In reply to Dave Garnett:


MPs are paid to represent their constituents views, I think that most remainer MPs would consult them at their surgeries and on social media and then ( wisely) vote with their constituents ( and the government)
It will will be of course serendipitous that they will also be more likely to keep their job at the next election if they do so

If May loses the SC appeal in December, she should call their bluff and make them vote immediately after.
The majority have leaver constituents, so the result is assured.

They work for us. ( but mostly for their own self interest

In reply to Jim C:

Are they paid to represent their views or their interests? Subtle but important difference. If it were views rather than interests, we'd still have capital punishment, abortion and homosexuality might still be illegal.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Let's get it right, you want , under the guise of sovereignty, to give a vote to MPs so they can vote against the majority of their voters to give away their sovereignty to the EU ?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

No kidding. This whole thing would be a hilarious irony fest if the stakes weren't so high.

I was trying to get my head around that, because apparently the Govt's doesn't have that option...unless referred by SC judge..?

In reply to Jim C:
Maybe read paragraphs 106 and 107 of the HC judgement

In reply to Jim C:

I think its about whats lawful and who holds the mechanisms to start this process.

I don't think this will change anything, but due process should be followed even if its going to be more complicated.

In reply to andy farnell:




Wow!!

How do you know all this stuff ??

In reply to GrahamD:

MPs publically voting in parliament would be a good chance to see just where their allegiances really lie.

In reply to arch: Erm, because they admitted that there was no £350m for the NHS, nor any chance of controlling immigration.

And since when has the current government been elected to rule? Theresa Mayhem certainly wasn't voted in by the public to be PM.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:




There we have it folks. The reason you voted to leave was because you are thick scum,who fell for the lies of the tabloid press.

Oh, if only we were all intelligent, uncorruptable, superior thinkers, like Andy F, wouldn't the world be a lovely place?

In reply to Clauso:



yes, making it up. but to be fair , what would you do otherwise given that Brexit is a fact if you go by the referendum ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Good news.

It seem to me that the referendum result was to leave the EU but said nothing about what form that exit should take. Despite the narrow margin of the decision and the dubious arguments in the run-up to the referendum, I accept the decision is made - we are leaving.

Now how do we decide what kind of post-EU future we want? Multiple referenda at every turn of the negotiations; leave it entirely to an unelected PM with a wafer thin majority to do as she chooses or leave it to the PM with a bit of oversight by the MPs we all elected not that long ago? My preference is the third - with such a small and dubious majority for leave, a few checks and balances along the way seem a good thing.

In reply to andy farnell:




2015. With 37% of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

In reply to Jim C:


The judgment seems unusually straightforward and confident. Not much in the way of if and buts, the government cannot lawfully use crown prerogative to overturn parliamentary legislation (the 1972 European Communities Act). Commentators are saying that the Supreme Court is very likely to affirm.

In reply to arch: The current PM wasn't voted in as PM.

And 37% isn't exactly a majority.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:



I've voted in every election over the last 31 years. Not once have I voted for anyone to be PM.

In reply to andy farnell:

No, but the Government was.


No of course not, but 52% - 48% is.

In reply to arch: The public were lied to. The people who lead brexit admitted they had lied. How can this not be understood? Yes, the majority, by a very tight margin voted to leave. Based on lies, deceit and being told to ignore the experts. Brexit was run like a bullying campaign, based on fear and scare tactics.

Andy F

In reply to Big Ger:

At what point did I say leave voters were thick scum?


Yes, yes it would..

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:


You said that; "The majority of leave voters voted because of the lies of Farage, Johnson, The Scum. The Daily Fail etc."

So I don't think you were claiming they were highly intelligent....

In reply to Big Ger:



'The Scum'. He was referring to the Sun newspaper which doesn't have much of a reputation in Merseyside.

In reply to Big Ger: So you're saying that The Scum is a top quality newspaper? Or is it that The Daily Fail is unbiased? Farage, Johnson et al did lie. I never questioned the intelligence of the leave voters, I only said they believed the lies. Completely different.

Andy F

In reply to Jim C:


Sorry, I very nearly missed this gem.

I'm not sure about the 'under the guise of sovereignty' bit, I'm a bit vague on what you think sovereignty is, but yes, letting MPs vote on important issues is something I'm quite keen on. The more important the issue, the more important that MPs should vote on it.

Why do you assume that MPs won't vote broadly according to their constituents' wishes? Of course, there is the problem that Scots weren't so keen on leaving and so the SNP MPs might need to think about that. And London MPs, maybe. And most university towns.

Anyway, most MPs seem to accept that the referendum result should be respected. What's not clear is the manner of our leaving and it's absolutely right that MPs should decide on that. It's no good May saying Brexit means Brexit, nor Farage thinking he has any mandate for decisions about the EEA, the customs union, hard, soft, Norwegian or Swiss Brexit.

It'll be Swiss, BTW.

In reply to Big Ger:


Highly intelligent may be slightly overstating it...

Interested to know whether you would class people who happily followed advice to reject expert opinion, in favour of outright lies, to be considered even moderately intelligent?

In reply to Jim C:

I just don't know where to begin, your reply is just so adrift. The decision today in the High Court was all about exactly what Brexiters claimed to be voting for, our sovereignty (which in the UK = our parliamentary sovereignty. We are not a dictatorship bolstered by plebiscites. There have been very few of those that have ever worked, except for one that went on for far too long and cost millions of lives.) The referendum, couched in mindbogglingly vague terms that almost no one understood at a meaningful level, and still, even now, most of the perpetrators cannot agree upon, was 'won' by a majority that Farage himself said he would have rejected the other way round. It was simply the beginning of an ongoing democratic process. And what makes you think that a huge majority of MPs will vote against it? My MP, for one, is a staunch Brexiter.

Other countries have been shocked that something so basic to our constitution, and so technically complex, could have been decided by one one simple 50% vote/show of hands of all and sundry, most of whom were not expert enough to make any kind of responsible decision (myself included). And it was about 37% of the electorate anyway who voted to leave. Not nearly enough, obviously.

Let's please stick to our hard-won parliamentary democracy. (Or, as I said earlier, suggest something better.)

In reply to arch:

When it comes down to the details, let's say 48% always wanted in, 26% (an educated guess) wanted a Norway/Swiss-type soft Brexit, half of them (guessing again) preferring no exit at all to an economically disastrous hard Brexit, and 26% just wanted out whatever the cost. So, faced with the prospect of a hard Brexit, 61% would prefer not to bother, thank you.

If an MP genuinely believes, from talking with constituents, that this is their will, even though 48% voted Out in May, which way should they vote in parliament when it comes to triggering Article 50?

In reply to GrahamD:

I'd like a soft remain with a few hard brexit features

In reply to Jim C:

PS. The idea of giving away our sovereignty to the EU is just a complete fallacy and falsehood anyway. We never gave away anything; we volunteered to make some joint decisions. Everything had to be agreed upon by us. Out of about 2,400 votes in EU history, we disagreed with/voted against about 52, didn't we? We kept our own laws, and our own currency. The EU court of human rights was vastly important (the 1998 Human Rights Act being drawn up under the Chairmanship of a Conservative minister.)

In reply to john arran:


Perhaps many of those would actually like a "soft" Brexit but voted Remain for fear of a "hard" Brexit? Afterall, the Remain campaign consisted of little but scaremongering.

In reply to andy farnell:


And the Remain campaign, consisting of little but ludicrous scaremongering, was just as dishonest and just as much based on fear and scare tactics -- but with added condescension for the voters.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


We agreed to give powers to the EU in such a way that we could not then un-agree things (short of leaving the EU). For example, we could not, at the moment, decide to alter the rules by which EU workers come to the UK. That is a loss of sovereignty. The fact that we agreed to that loss of sovereignty does not alter the fact that it is a loss of sovereignty.

In reply to john arran:


Fine. What about the majority who wanted out, don't they count ?? It doesn't matter if it soft, hard or blanc mange, the vote was out.


Well they got a vote the same as everyone else and the vote was to leave. For the sake of democracy in this country, the MPs should honour the initial result.

In reply to Coel

Afterall, the Remain campaign consisted of little but scaremongering.

And then they took it so far that it became impossible for even the most gullible to believe, many then realised that, the King had no clothes, the spell was broken and people saw through the scare stories, and voted Brexit.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Not as much as the leave campaign. I agree, there was some condescension, which was stupid and alienated voters, but the leavers tried (and succeeded) in getting voters to ignore the evidence put forwards by experts. Very clever, pandering to the fears of the masses of Scum and Fail readers.

Andy F.

In reply to arch:



It's a lose lose position for remainer MPs in a leavers constituency.
They are free to vote with their conscience, and vote against their government and their constituents, and then very likely fall on their sword at the next election.

In reply to andy farnell:


And maybe they were right to. As the risk of coming over a bit Michael Gove, the expert economists do not have a great record in predicting things like the effect of the Euro or Brexit.

And it's not about doubting all experts and all expertise, as some would have it, it's about doubting specifically the sort of economics experts who predicted that the Euro would be a success and that Brexit would be a disaster.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well ... we agreed (not at all reluctantly) to do that, and in many areas it's been a huge success story (notably in the hotel and catering industry, and fruit picking, to name just two, where we just could NOT get nearly enough indigenous labour). In so many industries it's been beneficial to all sides.

I (and many) are most scared about losing parliamentary democracy and going back to a kind of dictatorship that's only very vaguely validated by 'Crown Prerogative', i.e. back c.374 years.

In reply to RupertD:


And after that they can appeal to the EuJ (or so I'm told). Imagine: Eurocratlawjudgers rule Brexit illegal.

In reply to Big Ger:



You finally get it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


How many times will this argument be trotted and someone have to rebut it?

Most economists didn't say not joining the Euro would be a disaster - which is why we didn't. At the time, Blair was keen on the idea politically, but the Treasury analysis and Gordon Brown thought it was a bad idea, so they advised against it - and the government took that advice.

Imagine - a government taking the advice of experts, and it proving to be the right decision...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You're not seriously telling us that you're confusing the Brexit referendum result of June 24 with Brexit itself? No one knows yet what Brexit will do to our economy, if it ever happens. But the vote alone has already done a huge amount of damage to us, by devaluing the pound by 18%. No less.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



You don't know what the experts said..

The experts recommended we didn't join the euro. We still don't know how Brexit will turn out. The experts reckon we'll be poorer in the long run..

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Beat me to it

In reply to andyfallsoff:


He's got you bang to rights there Coel.

... You're an astrophysicist, aren't you? My mate Dave tells me that the earth is flat, and that we'd be better off out of the solar system.

Care to argue otherwise? Why should I believe you?

In reply to Coel Hellier: You never, ever want to come across like backstabber, education destroyer, Machiavellian Gove

Andy F

In reply to andyfallsoff:


There were plenty of the same "we'll be isolated and left behind" predictions that we're now getting about Brexit.

But that's not what I was referring to. The Euro has turned out to work a lot worse than most experts predicted. It has been an utter disaster for Greece. It has exacerbated tensions between Northern EU nations and the Mediterranean nations. Would the Greeks have wanted to be part if they knew they'd be in their current situation? Likely not.


That's not really my recollection. The economic experts were largely in favour. Blair was politically in favour, Brown more reluctant. Blair hesitated because he wasn't sure he could get it passed the people. Then, after Iraq, his credibility was shot and he knew he couldn't get it passed.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Cites please.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You're right, I'm not. My statement was that "the expert economists do not have a great record in predicting THINGS LIKE the effect of the Euro or Brexit".

In reply to FesteringSore:


Whoooosh

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


That's a bit melodramatic about implementing the results of a referendum, one of the purest forms of democracy and not really comparable to "dictatorship".

The Crown Prerogative stuff is really just a legal device for the idea that the referendum should be sufficient.

In reply to NathanP:


When the country decides to go to war, should we then vote on what kind of war we want. Or do we leave it to the war cabinet and the generals?

Lets vote for soft war perhaps, with a few bombs hurled from a distance with little risk of casualties on our side, or perhaps we can vote for hard war with boots on the ground, and lots of body bags coming back home?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Do you think that a referendum ought to be sufficient Coel?

... This is important. My mate Dave's serious, and I ain't got no time to be shifting solar systems if he wins. My commute is bad enough as it is.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Doesn't change the figures or the question - we still would be facing a majority facing a hard Brexit they didn't vote for and wouldn't have voted for had they known.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's late at night, so I'm not in a mood for a serious argument, but I'd be amused to know what those other THINGS ('like the effect of the Euro and Brexit') are ... sounds like something out of a some Hollywood B movie.

In reply to arch:


In your binary world, maybe yes. But you either didn't read my post or chose to ignore the implications of it due to it not fitting with your desired outcome.

In reply to Clauso:


Yes I do, actually. I do think that a referendum should supersede Parliament. We tend only to have referendums on decisions that are sufficiently big that it is thought that we should all have a say in a referendum, rather than leave it to Parliament.

There is no point in having a referendum unless one takes that attitude. If it is merely to advise Parliament then they could just ring up a polling organisation and save a whole lot of bother.

Thus, for example, had the Scots voted for independence, I don't think it would have been acceptable for Parliament to then over-rule that outcome.

In reply to Clauso:

My mate Dave tells me that the earth is flat, and that we'd be better off out of the solar system.
Why should I believe you?

Because he is an 'expert'
( Experts are always right after all( even when they disagree with each other)
They are the infallible , and so must both be right , because they are ' experts'

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


The Euro is, of course, one.
Then there's the whole subprime and credit crash of 2007 on, the experts didn't exactly cover themselves with glory in predicting that.
Then there was the dot-com boom and crash. Ditto.
The ERM and Britain crashing out of it.
And I could likely think of lots more if it weren't late.

PS To everyone. My recollection is that Blair repeatedly touted the expert opinion that joining the Euro would be good for the UK economy -- but bottled out of actually going for it.

PPS Public service announcement: Gove did not say that "People in this country have had enough of experts".

No, he really didn't! What he said was (more like): "People in this country have had enough of experts from institutions with acronyms for names who repeatedly make predictions and get them wrong". That is rather different!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Would you also advocate people who believe in horoscopes superseding scientific boards where the question of nuclear power is concerned, for instance?... After all, those astrologers are probably in the majority? Give 'em a go huh? Who needs facts anyhow?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

My memory is that there was extremely little support for the Euro from either business or the general public, so that it never got near to being presented to a parliamentary vote or a referendum. Decisions against it were simply made at a ministerial level and the public were perfectly happy with that/ never expressed any strong discontent about the decision (not to join ... staying with the status quo never being a big deal anyway). Or is my memory wrong?

In reply to Coel Hellier: Institutions with acronyms, such as MIT, UCL, NASA etc are generally quite knowledgeable in their areas of speciallism. But you know that anyway...

Andy F

In reply to Jim C:

Are category errors a hobby or are you just trying to stimulate vigorous debate?

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/uk-exhausted-from-arguing-with-b...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Despite the fact that leave campaign lied on their two biggests policy points, then told the public to ignore the predictions (now coming true) about the massive negative impact of leaving.

Andy F

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Can you also please read paragraphs 106 and 107 of the HC judgement? Thanks. Referendums do not come invested with inherent 'sufficiency'.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Thanks, point taken. I'm off to my bed. Appreciate the advice. Have a goodnight.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
One more, and then I am really going to sleep. Gove actually said "I think people in this country have had enough of experts."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry to push the scientific thing, but it honestly feels as though Brexit currently resembles an undergraduate hypothesis, voted for in an episode of X-factor, without any clear plan for an experimental method that can actually make it past the scrutiny of the supervisors... All the while, paying ridiculous tuition fees - subject to increase at a moments notice - regardless.

P.S. I voted Remain.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

http://xkcd.com/386/

In reply to andy farnell:


No, what I was saying is that your slur that The majority of leave voters voted because of the lies of Farage, Johnson, The Scum. The Daily Fail etc." insults a great many people, some of whom I would imagine are far more intelligent than you or I.

In reply to Jim C:


Not the best example there since that is exactly what the Uk system is tending towards. Limiting the ability of the executive to decide on a war. You might recall a few votes recently about how involved we should get in various conflicts.

In reply to Clauso:

Your assumption that they "happily followed advice to reject expert opinion," is a HUGE one. Care to substantiate it?

Maybe this is the sort of thinking which inspired them;

July 2015 – “Brutal”

“If the EU becomes a totally brutal organisation that treats every one of its member states in the way that the people of Greece have been treated at the moment, then I think it will lose a lot of support from a lot of people.”

June 2015 – “Colonies of debt peonage”

“[If] Greece leaves both the eurozone and the EU its future would be uncertain, but at least it could be its own. … There is no future for a usurious Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage.”

January 2015 – Undemocratic

Public opposition to the EU’s TTIP treaty is “a cri de coeur for democracy and for the right of people to elect a Government who can decide what goes on in their country.”

April 2013 – “Worst of all worlds”

“Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating rail services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either. What we have is the worst of all worlds.”

February 2011 – Human rights abuses

“We have EU trade agreements with a number of countries that include a human rights clause that has not been enforced or effected. Is it not time for us to look again at the whole strategy for the region?

May 2005 – “Simply crazy”

It is morally wrong [to] pay farmers to over-produce… then use taxpayers’ money to buy the over-production, so it is already a double purchase, and it is then shipped at enormous public cost across the seas to be dumped as maize on African societies. … The practice is simply crazy and must be stopped.”

October 2003 – Morally Unjustifiable

“[W]e are now exporting 40 per cent of the world’s sugar and subsidising it to the tune of €500 per tonne. That is not justifiable in any moral or other sense. We are driving cane sugar producers in Africa and elsewhere out of business so that European sugar can be dumped on their markets.”

May 1993 – Opposition to Maastricht

“I am sure that [Labour MPs] will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”

March 1993 – EU Army

“[W]e are moving towards a common European defence and foreign policy. That being so, one must ask who proposes it, who controls it and what it is for? … Title V states that the objective of such a policy shall be “to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union”. What exactly does that mean?”

In reply to Big Ger:


Are you saying the majority of leave voters were uninfluenced by the papers and managed to get their hands on completely objective materials to make their judgement?


Firstly that would be covered under majority aka not all. Secondly highly intelligent people can be prone to misjudgements in the same way as others. Allowing biases to get in the way

In reply to Clauso:

Nice analogy (though not so nice, because it is so apt.)

In reply to KevinD:


No, I was saying that there may be a number of reasons why they voted out.


Well Andy F certainly demonstrated that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Here's 18 studies the government commissioned - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107205404/http://www.hm-trea...

to be fair, prior to this work being done more economists were in favour of joining than not. but then they got some experts to study it properly and that work weighed in favour of not joining...

In reply to GrahamD:

Brilliant result and entirely unexpected. Speaking as a Brexiteer. Yet still without an election being called, or indeed a parliamentary debate she implies she can push something called Brexit through under royal prerogative. And to think it might be a crisis in British democracy that led us here in the first place. Not very bright are they, our lord's and masters?

D

In reply to Big Ger: I



Some will be. The Scum and Fail readers, probably not. And I'm not insulting them and probably telling the truth.

Andy F

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Given that you don't give any credibility to experts (despite the difference between being able to predict one-off shocks from varied sources, as opposed to being able to model the impacts from known changes), how can you then trust the (few) people who tell you brexit will be ok?

Even though they can't say how or why, or what these new "opportunities" are going to be?

In reply to Coel Hellier:




But the Scottish independence vote was pretty clear on what the choice was between; 'an independent Scotland' is a pretty unambiguous concept.

As a nation, we voted for brexit. Ok; but what does that mean? I think it's pretty clear that it means at the end of the process we will not be part of the EU; but beyond that?

There is no consensus over what our relationship with the EU should be after brexit; and it should not be left to one person to 'channel' what the country meant when it voted. Parliament would be deranged not to endorse the invocation of article 50; but if it is sovereign- and that's what we were told was central to the brexit vote- then it is absolutely legitimate, indeed essential, that it plays a central role in triggering our exit, and shaping what our future relationship with the EU looks like.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Ok; having read through the thread, I would still like an answer to this question from anyone that supports brexit: why is this a problem?

In the UK, parliament is sovereign, not the executive. And that was a big part of what brexit was about; the recovery to parliament of lost sovereignty. On a matter as important as this, if this principle means anything, parliament has to give its consent. The judiciary are unequivocally in agreement with this.

Why do brexit supporters seem to be rejecting the legitimacy of the very thing they voted to defend, and supporting the executive in its apparent contempt of the sovereign institution of the nation?

In reply to Big Ger:


So are you saying that it doesn't matter that the leading lights of the Leave campaign told huge lies, because nobody was fooled by them and they would all have voted to leave anyway?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


It's as unambiguous as an independent UK, a country that is no longer subordinate to a higher power and can make its own decisions.


What do you think it ought to mean beyond that? We're an independent country, we'll make agreements with other nations and make new ones as Parliaments get voted in and out. We'll keep changing the law as Parliaments get voted in and out.


Do you think of Parliament as not being sovereign every time they the executive uses prerogative powers, or every time the executive makes a decision? We'll find out soon whether this is one of those cases where they can use them, but it's a decision about distribution of powers whatever the result, nothing to do with sovereignty - either way Parliament is still sovereign.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I don't think it is personally, but I can see that others are seeing this as an attempt to block leaving.


The thing is the entirety of the government and how it functions, including the executive traditionally taking decisions in relation to treaties, hence the feeling this is just being done to block leaving.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Because they have no idea as to what sovereignty is in the first place ?

In reply to thomasadixon:

The judgement clearly states that since an act of parliament requires changing, parliament needs to be involved. Anything else would be a denial of parliamentary sovereignty and unlawful.

Yes, that in theory means that parliament could set aside the result; but in practice they would be deranged to try this.

I still don't buy the line of argument that we voted to recover parliamentary sovereignty, but it's simultaneously unproblematic to accede to executive decision making because that's a tradition in this area- even if that was relevant, which as the high Court said was not the case here.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Not that I'm a Brexit supporter (I have a fairly strong dislike of the word itself but it seems we're stuck with it) but there are three points that spring to mind: Firstly, if there is a concerted effort to delay the invocation of Article 50, it might be necessary to have a General Election and that raises the possibility that the next Parliament would not feel bound by the referendum and stay in the E.U. The result of the referendum was so close, with a marked tendency for older voters to vote to leave and younger people to support staying, that in a few years a sufficiently large proportion of the Leave voters will have died and a lot of younger people will have become eligible to vote, thus meaning that the referendum would no longer reflect the true will of the people; Secondly, M.P.s might play politics with it, and insist on amendments to any bill, or other assurances, that tie the Government's hands when it comes to negotiations. For example M.P.s could insist that the U.K. stays in the E.E.A. without contradicting the result of the referendum. The hardline Brexiters certainly don't want to allow that possibility as it would almost certainly mean the free movement of workers and the need to comply with the vast majority of European Law; Thirdly, there's a practically non-existent chance that parliament may not vote to leave the E.U. but why take the chance?

In reply to thomasadixon:



But should we be part of the EEA? Which to prioritize- ccontrol of borders or tariff free trade? If its control of borders, what are the limits of the economic cost of this that are acceptable?

And so on.

The referendum did not provide answers to these questions. Anyone who claims to know what the country wants on these is wrong, and this includes the prime minister. Brexit is a given; but the shape it takes is legitimate business for parliament, or else the one thing everyone agrees brexit was about- recovery of sovereignty for parliament- is betrayed.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well this is what the argument is about. The court said that because of the effect of triggering article 50 was to make an act that *was* passed by Parliament no longer law then a vote is required. The government say that the fact that they do have the power to trigger article 50 (and it's agreed they do) must mean that they're supposed to be able to use that power, and so there's no need for a vote. The Supreme Court will decide.


The decision isn't about sovereignty, its about procedure within government. Why is this particular exercise of power special so that it harms sovereignty in some way?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

You don't think extremely similar questions came from Scotland leaving the UK? Euro/pound, EU/not EU, new immigration policy, etc.

All the other decisions you're talking about are decisions for the government of the day, and depend massively on available options. Can we be part of the EEA without being subject to the ECJ? If not, then no (as that's remaining in the EU). If yes, then maybe (up to the government of the day, and available for any new government to change).

In reply to thomasadixon:


No, Scotland had clearly stated aims for independence. If we had voted yes, the aim was to try to stay in Europe, for example. There was a HUGE white paper that laid out the plan. A PLAN! That was the big difference. Brexit had, and still has, no plan! Very different scenario.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes, I think that's right. And, unsurprisingly, the HC doesn't agree, and I suspect neither will the SC.

The referendum had no legal effect and, where British subjects lose legal rights as a consequence, we can't have Prime Ministers just overturning inconvenient legislation without consulting parliament.

In reply to andy farnell:


Yes, despite that, because the Remain campaign was equally dishonest.


Sure, but the doubt about competence is specifically about **economic** **predictions**.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


My comment was in reply to "Do you think that a referendum ought to be sufficient Coel?", it was not a statement about what is legally the case. I do think they ought to be sufficient.


No, that was merely the first half of the sentence. The second half continued: "... from institutions with acronyms for names who repeatedly make predictions and get them wrong". It is not his fault if the second half of his sentence was talked over. His *intent* was the whole sentence.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


That's only about *economics* experts and the difficulty of macro-economic predictions, not experts in general (and neither was Gove's comment).


I don't trust them. I simply come to the best judgement I can, just like everyone else who has an opinion on this.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Re Scotland there were equally big uncertainties, such as would we still be in a currency union. Suppose the Scots had voted for independence, would the Westminster Parliament then have been ok to say: "ok, we accept it, but only if the Scots {still use}/{no longer use} the pound, otherwise we veto it"?

That's what some are suggesting over the EU, Parliament saying no Brexit unless we retain access to the Single Market or whatever. I think the UK should respect the referendum outcome, trigger Article 50, and *then* Parliament can have a say in future deals.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
As someone who knows a lot more about finance than quarks, our joining the euro was never really a serious consideration.

it was kicked around as a pet Blair project, but it never threatened - if he was that keen to drive it through it would have led to a backbench revolt, a fall out with Brown that made his usual day to day punch ups look like kid's play and resignations en mass form the various Treasury, PPS et al.

We never adjusted our valuations or hedged for it - the lessons from the ERM fiasco really put paid to any idea of dropping Sterling for the Euro.

Plus, Sterling works well as a flight currency - as it has since 2008.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well considering the tory manifesto in 2015 clearly shows a commitment to the single market including expanding the areas it covers that throws up a bit of a problem.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

>. His *intent* was the whole sentence.

Very unlikely. He is not stupid and it was a planned phrase. His intent was precisely to play to the "let's kick the elite" theme that garnered so many votes. We are seeing the same in the US with Trump and it's a very dangerous trend in politics.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

strongly put ideas about simple democracy expressing "The General will of the people" have had great impact on the 20th century. I'm sure the people from all classes who took part in such plebiscites were not particularly evil or stupid but they were certainly misled by dishonest politicians. That is why we need checks and balances.

It's not a great idea to be in favour of arbitrary government replacing parliamentary democracy. Blair replaced cabinet government with sofa government and was justly blasted for it. May's attempt to use the prerogative to diminish parliamentary democracy is in the same class and she deserves to fail.

As I said earlier the English Civil War was fought in good measure because of the evils of the prerogative taking precedence leading to arbitrary government.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Not sure the referendum had no effect ...

I heard someone on R4 thinking the Referendum result had already taken us out and was surprised to hear otherwise!

In reply to MG:

>> His *intent* was the whole sentence.


If you view the video of the exchange (it's on youtube) you see that he repeatedly tries to complete the sentence, and is repeatedly interrupted before he finally gets to complete the sentence. The fact that he insisted on completing his sentence suggests that the whole sentence, not just the first bit, was his intent.

He may have planned the sentence, but he probably could not plan for being interrupted half-way through it. If you see that video you see that he was doing well to keep his cool under a lot of rather hostile questioning.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel, I think you're a bit strong on the dismissal of economic/experts here. Economics is rubbish at unconditional forecasts - eg what will growth be next year - but not so bad at conditional forecasts - eg what *difference* will Brexit make.

Analogy: a doctor can tell you that being overweight increases your risk of having a heart attack. They can't tell you when you'll have one.

In reply to GrahamD:

I must say that today's Mail front page is a new kind of dangerous. Didn't realise i could like that rag less, but wow.

In reply to thomasadixon:

"The decision isn't about sovereignty, its about procedure within government. Why is this particular exercise of power special so that it harms sovereignty in some way?"

It's really quite simple. The prerogative power should not be used arbitrarily to exercise power without accountability to parliament (representing the Interests (note - not necessarily the same as wishes)) of the electorate. The lack of process in this case could be used to perform an action without Parliament knowing what is even being done as there has been insufficient time to plan and design our future relationship with the EC/EEA.

Pretty important as effectively it is the correct operation of a check on "railroading" the UK on a hazardous line

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Very much so. In addition the 80's economic experience where interest rates and so forth where set with London/SE in mind whilst the north of the country suffered, was also illustrative of the problem of central economic control for large geographic areas with significant economic variation.

In reply to the thread:

Question to Remainers re Referenda versus Parliaments:

Let's suppose that Remain had won the referendum by a clear 60:40 margin.

Let's then suppose that a Tory government, elected on 37% of the vote, pushed through Parliament, by a majority of 3, a bill to trigger Article 50.

Would you say: "That's ok, that's valid, Parliament is sovereign and the referendum and popular will was only advisory"?

Or would you scream blue murder?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think we'd be in uncharted waters if that happened - It's about as likely as dark matter being marmite.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


f*cking hell. That really is grade a unpleasant nuts.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Here is the flaw to begin with. Why change the margins?

In reply to wercat:


We'd be in those same uncharted waters if Parliament now refuses to pass an Article 50 bill.

In reply to KevinD:


OK, then answer the question presuming a 52:48 vote for Remain. (I changed the margin simply to make the issue of principle starker.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Keeping the status quo is clear cut.

I think a closer a question would be if we had voted to join when previously not members by 51:49, would discussion in parliament about the details of the terms of joining be appropriate, rather than the PM unilaterally deciding to say join all of Schengen, Euro etc. etc. I think the answer would be yes.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
to be a bit more practical, as you seem to be making an assumption that the judges are acting for those who want to remain in the EU and against the general will of the Great British Volk. (And of course some people got rid of judges who stood up against them).

Isn't the most likely outcome simply be that Parliament is able to scrutinize and then accept or reject the executive's proposals until they are acceptable and seen to be in UK's best interests, give or take some unsavoury circus shennanegans on the way?


Why are you standing up to be counted as being against that? Do you prefer the simple and instant exercise of the volkswille as expressed by, for example, the Daily Mail or the Sun?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
of course I did overlook the fact we are indeed already in uncharted waters

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Yep - they really are on the verge of going full Nazi now.

Edit: and fwiw, I don't think Godwin's law applies when someone's actually got to the point of calling senior judges "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" for trying to uphold the law.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The tabloid press are totally out of control at the moment, it's disgusting.
jk

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I thought that was particularly dangerous rhetoric to apply to a cause that's already inspired one* person to murder.


*Obviously severely unwell

In reply to Coel Hellier:


As MG says there are plenty of other flaws in your comparison.
If they went for something which was contrary to their manifesto then it would be problematic. We dont have the mechanism to solve it currently though.
Speaking of contrary to manifesto. How do you decide that the tory clear pledge to the single market should be ignored?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'm sure we'll hear Theresa May and the majority of politicians condemning the Mail for openly fanning the flames against the legal process.

According to the article, one of the judges is 'openly-gay'. Well that changes everything.

In reply to Lemony:


Thats the French owned papers for you.

Fun fact: Rothermere that brave owner of the paper defending all things British claims to be French so he can dodge taxes. Least I dont think he has changed his nondom status since private eye published it.

In reply to Lemony:


Yes. Although the original online article when they questioned the legitimacy of the verdict was possibly even classier:
“The judges who blocked Brexit: One founded a EUROPEAN law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.”

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'd probably scream blue murder at the result, but I'd completely expect that the vote was necessary. If MPs vote against invoking Art 50 per se, you'll be entitled to scream all you like. They wouldn't win the vote you hypothesise in your scenario, and they won't lose the one they need now.

The real point is that such a vote won't end up being on a simplistic bill to invoke Article 50. There will be lots of discussion of amendments addressing the rather important issue of what we plan to do instead...

In reply to Coel Hellier:





In that situation, there is recourse because we have a democratic system that can prevent it - the Lords would be able to resist the bill, which would give an opportunity to resist this.

There also isn't any indication that parliament will vote against leaving - quite the opposite. But it is reasonable that the entire parliamentary system is able to engage in the process, given its probably the most fundamental change to the country that will take place in our lifetimes.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Of course it is but its a great sound bite from the masters of sound bites. If we had given away sovereignty we wouldn't be debating how, why or when to leave the EU because we wouldn't have that choice.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



The thing is that the referendum question was not symmetrical so it is completely appropriate to react differently to a Remain vote from a Leave vote. 'Remain' was a well defined proposition which everyone understood and doesn't involve changing any laws or removing anyone's legal rights.

'Leave' was never defined. Once it is defined the people, either through parliament or through another referendum need to get to decide on whether they like the actual proposal.

In reply to GrahamD:

This case was always likely to go to the Supreme Court who ever won yesterday, and I suspect that the govt will have already worked out waht to do what ever the next outcome.

As John Redwood has pointed out ( I am not a fan of his, but he is quite good on parliamentary procedure) there is a simple solution to this. The opposition can table a motion for a debate on this for what is called a substantive bill.It can quickly be dealt with.

So for all the bluster on this there may be a simple parliamentary procedure for dealing with it.

In reply to neilh:

Wonder what is going to happen with Stephen Phillips seat. Its unclear whether he is going to restand as an independent as per Zac Goldsmith.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It was defined just as much as, say, Scotland leaving the UK was defined. Of course all the knock-on consequences were not known, but they could never be, so that's an unfair request. The possible consequences of leaving were discussed extensively in the campaign (the "remain" campaign did little else but repeatedly refer to them), and the people voted to leave.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


But do you really think it's sensible for Parliament to specify to everyone (including the EU) what our negotiating strategy is? How would that work?

Parliament> We trigger Art50, but the government must obtain X, Y and Z from the negotiations.

Article 50 is trigged

Government to EU> We want X, Y, and Z.

EU> Nope, no way. Not agreed.

Government> But we're not allowed to ask for anything else. We can't negotiate.

EU> Tough.

Two years pass by. We thus leave without any agreement at all.

It is perfectly reasonable for Parliament to vote on deals *after* they have been negotiated. It is, though, unworkable for Parliament to try to bind the hands of the negotiators. That would greatly strengthen the hand of the EU! Knowing exactly what the UK could or could not agree to, the EU could then demand just about anything as the price.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So what happens if parliament vote no to the negotiation?


So what you are saying is your concern for democracy is somewhat flexible? What about the requirement for the single market in the tory manifesto?
This really shows the clusterf*ck that Brexit is. People voted for lots of different concepts of what it means. Some voted for parliamentary sovereignty so long as that sovereignty agrees with them. Some voted out assuming the single market was retained. Otherwise voted out because they wanted rid of it.
Claiming a democratic mandate for whatever the negotiating team fancies is dubious.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Who said that they wouldn't be allowed to negotiate on terms? People want definition on what our government's aims are. Are they: a) Leave the EU, but remain in the single market with all that that entails; b) push all the foreigners into the sea and build castles on every clifftop, or; c) something in between the two?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Let's make this explicit:

Parliament agrees to triggering of Article 50, but makes it legally binding that the government must obtain full access to the single market.

The EU, knowing that, then makes a huge list of unreasonable demands in return for full access to the single market, and just stone-walls, insisting on that, knowing that the UK has no choice but to agree, having been legally committed to that by its Parliament.

The UK government then has a choice of (1) agreeing to the worst possible deal, or (2) accepting that no deal is made -- and so, after two years, according to Article 50, we just leave with no deal having been done.

Is either of those what you want?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


But what the government's *aims* are is different from what deal it might settle for under negotiation. If Parliament just wants a statement of *aims*, then no problem. It is if it starts passing legal requirements about outcomes that it makes things impossible.

In reply to KevinD:


If the government negotiated a deal, and then Parliament rejected that deal, then -- under Article 50 -- the negotiations would continue until, after 2 years, we left without any deal. That would be in Parliament's mind if it wanted to reject any deal.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I take your point but we can't allow the future of the country to depend on what May think she can smuggle past her own backbenchers. We should have a debate about whether our preferred options include membership of the EEA, membership of the customs union, paying for access to specific EU organisations, or whether we really do want the default to be complete isolation and then a series (hopefully) of bilateral agreements.

Then I think that we need some sort of cross-party steering committee to which David Davis needs to report (perhaps in closed session). It's a real mess, into which we should never have landed ourselves.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I do agree that Parliament should be involved in ratifying any deal, and that Parliament should be kept in the loop leading up to that. But I don't think we can have Parliament binding the negotiators' hands from the off. We have to let the government talk to the EU and bring back at least the outline of a deal, which everyone can then discuss.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm pretty sure most people understand you rarely, if ever, get exactly what you want during a negotiation. The law says parliament needs to be consulted, and I can't believe you see anything in Liam Fox or David Davis that makes you think that the law should be ignored in this case.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


so like it or lump it? I take it you didnt vote out in the interests of Uk parliamentary sovereignty then.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


A ministerial announcement of an aim or policy isn't legally binding, it's a commitment to do their best (and to be accountable to the House). They'd be unwise to promise full access to the single market because, as has been made perfectly plain, that depends on freedom of movement of labour. This, I suspect, is the central deception they don't want to discuss in parliament. They know they can't deliver this and the hard right of the party would rather walk away from any access to the EU market than compromise.

In reply to wercat:

Where's the question of sovereignty? All of that applies whenever the executive exercise their powers. It's hardly arbitrary to do what the referendum decided, and leave the EU.


Maybe, but that's a question of distribution of powers, not sovereignty - which is about the UK having the power to make the decisions through the usual institutions, rather than a superior power making them.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I'm quite baffled by your logical fallacies. It's a question of distribution of powers between parliament and the government, and of course, parliamentary sovereignty depends on that distribution of powers.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Sort of. The ECJ can only rule on questions of EU law and this case is mostly about the UK constitution. Only if there is some unresolved question about article 50 can the matter be appealed to the ECJ and even then only on that question. So it seems pretty unlikely.

In reply to RupertD:


It would be worth it though, just to see Farage explode, possibly even literally.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Perhaps, but the Canadian deal (and other deals) shows that one could get *sufficient* access to the single market without agreeing to freedom of movement.

The problem with Parliament now trying to specify how the negotiations should go would be that they'd have to define what "sufficient access" would amount to, and yet that degree of access will be the whole topic under discussion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

CETA opens up the door for some trade in services and therefore also provides for some degree of freedom of movement for workers.
Not sure that would work in the UK given the obsession around immigration, and anyway, would still be far behind the level of access we enjoy now

In reply to Coel Hellier:


In the Scottish Referendum the SNP government put out a detailed proposal and set out their goals in the negotiation with the UK and EU as the people who would be carrying it out. Of course, the outcome of the negotiation was still not known and there was a lot of dispute about what was achievable.

In the EU referendum there was no 'official' or consistent Leave position, different groups put out their own conflicting visions designed to appeal to different sections of the electorate. Being able to say different things to different people is a massive advantage and what was worse was the unscrupulous way different factions within Leave allowed complete BS from other factions such as the NHS promise to go unchallenged because they knew they would not be accountable for implementing it.

In reply to RupertD:

One of the central question is whether article 50 can be withdrawn once triggered, this is very important for the article 50 case, given that the high court's ruling is based on the idea that article 50 is irrevocable, and therefore triggering it using the royal prerogative would inevitably end a whole range of individual rights associated with EU membership, which is not something the government is allowed to do with the RP.

Up to this point the government's lawyers have not used this argument that article 50 could be withdrawn once triggered, for obvious political reasons.
But if they want to win their appeal it seems to me they'll have to argue that it can be reversed, and it's quite likely that if they do this, the ECJ would be asked to clarify this point.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It can't, it explicitly says so.


Trade in services is not the same thing as freedom of movement. One can have services (e.g. a Canadian company can sell accountancy services to an EU customer) without there being free movement for workers

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


But there was no certainty about major issues such as whether Scotland would remain in a currency union with England and keep the pound. That's equivalent to the uncertainty over whether we remain in the single market.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Look. If it'll keep Ian Duncan Smith and the Daily Mail happy shouldn't we just shut our eyes tight and jump. After all tombstoning is more exciting in the dark.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Where?

"Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49."

In reply to MG:


Well I was thinking that Item 5 said that, though on re-reading it it isn't fully unambiguous. Still, it seems to me that that's the intent.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Page 5, boxed paragraphs. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016...

In reply to GrahamD:

Where is Bootrock in all this? He's not..... melted away.... has he?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


There is a strong view that it should be revocable, including from some of those who were involved in the drafting (e.g. Lord Kerr). However it was accepted unchallenged by both parties to the recent case that it was irrevocable, although that is probably because it was politically necessary to do so for the government; and necessary to argue the point for the claimants.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Actually no, it doesn't say anything about this. Its


I'm not sure I follow you, how the hell can you trade services if the people delivering those services are not allowed to move to and work in the country where they need to deliver this service ? You need some kind of freedom of movement for those workers, the more services are covered, the more extensive it has to be.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The internet! For example, you could hire a Canadian to build you a website. The Canadian can do it from home and not have to work in the EU.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But then you are extremely limited to only the type of services that can be delivered remotely. This already happens with offshoring, for all the rest you need some sort of freedom of movement for the workers.

If you're a Canadian accountant doing an audit for a French company and can't work on site in France then you are automatically at an unfair competitive disadvantage compared to an accountant from the EU who can be, that's a form of trade barrier.

In reply to Coel Hellier:






It's not in the interest of the member states of the E.U. to play hardball like that, Boris Johnson said so: “We are going to benefit from the fantastic opportunities for greater free trade with our friends in the EU. It’s overwhelmingly in their interest to do that.” ...because... “Not only do we buy more German cars than anybody else, we drink more Italian wine than any other country in Europe, 300 million litres of Prosecco every year. They’re not going to put that at risk.” so clearly it doesn't matter if they know our negotiation position. As long as we keep driving and drinking, they wouldn't dare oppose our demands!

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes, it indeed does limit the type of services you can offer. But the agreement does *not* grant freedom of movement (it does allow for the *temporary* placement of a company's staff to the other country, but if it wants *permanent* staff there it has to hire locals, or others with a right to work there).

Effectively the agreement says: (1) yes, EU businesses, you can sell services in Canada; (2) no, that does not mean EU nationals have a right to move there to work; (3) you deal with that however you like, either by delivering services remotely, or by hiring local staff, or whatever.

Most free-trade agreements worldwide (including trade in services) do *not* include free movement of workers! It's only in the EU that these things have been directly coupled by EU policy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well yes it does, EU nationals delivering services on the list of profession agreed (which is a negative list, anything not excluded is included) will be allowed to work for up to three years in Canada, from originally 90 days, as well as provisions for intra company transfers and so on. And vice versa of course.



Actually most do, whether it's ASEAN or NAFTA, or other agreement that include some trade in services. But obviously none go remotely as far as the EEA in the type of services that can be traded, so they are much more limited in their scope.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It's worth noting that *that* deal, -- that someone employed by an EU company delivering services can be seconded to the country -- might well be something that the UK government and most Brexiters would readily accept.

It's worth noting that no senior Brexiter has ever asked for *no* movement of people, they've only asked for some limitations on it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


NAFTA is very, very far from allowing Mexicans to travel freely across the border into the US and look for work.

Again, there should indeed be *some* allowance for people to move, and every senior Brexiter supports that. If the EU were willing to allow some reasonable deal around free movement, perhaps similar to that just agreed with Canada, then we can all have an amicable agreement with mutual free trade.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes, they might agree with less free trade in exchange of a more limited freedom of movement.


Are you sure ? All we heard about was the end of freedom of movement, "point based system" and reducing immigration to 100,000. That, BTW would not even cover students and family reunion, leaving probably no or little room for workers.
so I can't really see how they could agree to a more liberal visa system with the EU in exchange of free trade in services in that situation of overwhelming political pressure around reducing immigration.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



There was no certainty as to whether Scotland could keep the pound, but it was made clear that that was the intention. At the end of the day, a yes vote would have been a gamble, but at least the population knew what the gamble was. In this chaos, no one knew what was on the table , including the leave campaigners!

In reply to girlymonkey:


The situations are actually pretty similar:

Given a yes vote, the Scottish government had stated their intention to keep the pound; but the English (UK) government had stated that that would not be possible (under conditions acceptable to the Scots).

Given a Brexit vote, the British government had stated their intention to keep free trade and access to the single market; but the EU had stated that that would not be possible (under conditions acceptable to the UK).

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Because NAFTA is very far from covering as many services as CETA, and even farther than something like the EEA.


As I said - doesn't look likely given that the voters at the moment seem quite opposed to foreign courts and willing to reduce immigration to drastic levels.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes! No senior Brexiter has ever asked for *no* movement of workers between us and the EU. They have explicitly talked about points-based systems that would allow for it.


"More liberal visa system" than what? It would be *less* liberal than the current totally-free movement, but still allow for some worker movement.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Given that half the country (in round numbers) wants to stay in the EU and continue with full and free movement, as now, I'm amazed that you think that the government could not persuade the voters to accept something halfway between full and open movement and no movement at all.

If the EU could be persuaded along those lines, you'd probably get 70 % (or so) acceptance (at least) from the UK voters.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes, sure, but if they want to reduce immigration to 100,000, that point based system would have to let in almost no workers at all.


And hence, less free trade, particularly in the services sector where freedom of movement is key. It's a choice.
A very bad one IMO as I don't see the point of harming the economy in order to reduce the freedom of workers to move, but fair enough, if that's what the British public wants.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Because their key electorate is not representative of the rest of the country, those they need to convince to stay in power are not remain voters, it's the UKIP voters.



As above, it doesn't matter if the majority agrees with it, what matters is whether the Tory electorate, especially of the UKIP leaning kind, agrees with it.
Don't discount as well that Teresa May has a personal anti-immigration agenda.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Out of interest, what does the phrase "non-binding" mean to you in the context of referendums such as this?

In reply to David Martin:

I seem to remember a leaflet the our government put out to every houshold during the Referendum , at had all sorts of interesting 'facts' on it, one of them said :-
I quote.
"This is YOUR decision. The Government WILL implement what you decide."

Sound pretty binding to me.

In reply to EddInaBox:



No, if that is what I had wanted to say I would have said it. I did say that people may have been influenced by quotes such as these though;

July 2015 – “Brutal”

“If the EU becomes a totally brutal organisation that treats every one of its member states in the way that the people of Greece have been treated at the moment, then I think it will lose a lot of support from a lot of people.”

June 2015 – “Colonies of debt peonage”

“[If] Greece leaves both the eurozone and the EU its future would be uncertain, but at least it could be its own. … There is no future for a usurious Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage.”

January 2015 – Undemocratic

Public opposition to the EU’s TTIP treaty is “a cri de coeur for democracy and for the right of people to elect a Government who can decide what goes on in their country.”

April 2013 – “Worst of all worlds”

“Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating rail services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either. What we have is the worst of all worlds.”

February 2011 – Human rights abuses

“We have EU trade agreements with a number of countries that include a human rights clause that has not been enforced or effected. Is it not time for us to look again at the whole strategy for the region?

May 2005 – “Simply crazy”

It is morally wrong [to] pay farmers to over-produce… then use taxpayers’ money to buy the over-production, so it is already a double purchase, and it is then shipped at enormous public cost across the seas to be dumped as maize on African societies. … The practice is simply crazy and must be stopped.”

October 2003 – Morally Unjustifiable

“[W]e are now exporting 40 per cent of the world’s sugar and subsidising it to the tune of €500 per tonne. That is not justifiable in any moral or other sense. We are driving cane sugar producers in Africa and elsewhere out of business so that European sugar can be dumped on their markets.”

May 1993 – Opposition to Maastricht

“I am sure that [Labour MPs] will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”

March 1993 – EU Army

“[W]e are moving towards a common European defence and foreign policy. That being so, one must ask who proposes it, who controls it and what it is for? … Title V states that the objective of such a policy shall be “to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union”. What exactly does that mean?”

For some strange reason no one has commented on those reasons.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>Let's please stick to our hard-won parliamentary democracy. (Or, as I said earlier, suggest something better.)

How much of it was hard won? Is this on the back of O'Briens weirdly sexual lyrical ravings? I'm pleased with the result even as a Brexiteer. But mostly the 'Parliamentary Constitution' is a hodge podge of ad hoc and confusing legal statements that favor the types who drafted it to fight so hard to stop the riff raff from rising up and choking them to death in their grace and favor beds.

Hence, largely the present predicament, where a civil action needs to be brought against the government to make them do what they are supposed to do anyway on a matter that is hugely important for everyone. This didn't happen in parliament. That's not at all in favour of the archaic, opaque and obtuse system of governance we have in place at the moment.


D

In reply to RomTheBear:

Don't discount as well that Teresa May has a personal anti-immigration agenda

If you are referring to her populist but entirely ineffective performance at the Home Office you will have to do better. About as much good as tits on a fish, which strangely made her C.V. a shoe in for the top job.

D

In reply to David Martin:


I don't think we should have non-binding referendums. If the government wants an opinion poll it can ring up Gallup and ask for one. There is no point in a referendum unless it is intended to be binding.

Cameron, promsing the referendum:

"we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in/out referendum"

"It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics. I say to the British people: this will be your decision. And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country’s destiny."

OK, so one can say he was telling porkies, but the whole impression given was that the referendum would decide the issue. I suspect that, in the future, no government will try to hold another "non-binding" referendum, since the people will be a bit wiser.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


If only we could turn the clocks back and DC could have learned this before his rash decision to improve his personal political standing by risking dumping the whole country in a monumental shit pile.

In reply to Big Ger:


So tell us, do you think it matters that the leading lights of the Leave campaign knowingly told the British public such huge lies.


Because I would feel sullied if I responded to a cut and paste from Breitbart.

In reply to Coel Hellier: but we do, parliament is sovereign.

Parliament now needs to vote to allow the government to invoke art 50. This is such basic politics.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




The British government, pre vote, stated no intentions! They fully expected a remain vote and made no such plans. Since the vote it is clear that some people expect no free movement (therefore no single market), others expect full single market and free movement, and others expect something in between.

In reply to Coel Hellier:






That last paragraph is an outright lie, everyone knew this was an advisory poll..

In reply to Roadrunner5

And the government has to satisfy parliament as a whole that their plan and intentions are sufficient and ready to allow a vote to go that way

In reply to Jim C:




Ah, but if you're in the remain camp words like WILL IMPLEMENT take on a whole different twist according to the result of the vote. It's a bit like the Brussels dictators saying "yes you can have a referendum but if the result is wrong you must vote again until the result is to our liking"

In reply to Dauphin:


She was amazing good at managing to dodge blame. lasting that long in the home office was impressive. Although I would agree about her overall performance. Given her authoritarian tendencies it was rather good she was so ineffective.

In reply to girlymonkey:


It was part of the tory manifesto. So it is reasonable to assume that staying in the single market would be part of their strategy.

In reply to KevinD:

And then he said this

http://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-ou...

And then shortly after said this

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/cameron-indicates-wants-uk-stay-single...

And the current clowns can't decide what they want or what the public think they have voted on either!

In reply to KevinD:

Indeed

Indeed.

D

In reply to Jim C:


I see. So the officially and legally non-binding ref becomes binding because you receive something from the Tories that sounds "pretty binding"?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Point remains. There is zero obligation for us to Brexit.

Cameron's language can just as easily be read with the view that the ref is advisory - as it was.

As far as obligations go the referendum was clearly no more than an opinion poll. The non binding nature could just as easily have worked against a majority remain vote.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Of course lying by any politician"matters".


LOL! Not even verbatim quotes?

Honestly.

Try this; youtube.com/watch?v=SXTvsqUphMc&


Or how about this guy?

youtube.com/watch?v=dQY2CHx4d3U&

In reply to Jim C:



The most any party, any government, can promise is that they will adopt the result of a referendum as policy. It has the same effect as a manifesto commitment. They can't promise to implement anything because they don't have the power to impose law. For that they need the consent of parliament (both houses) and the courts will rightly prevent them from behaving unlawfully.

They can do their honest best to provide the parliamentary time, draft the appropriate bills, whip their backbenchers, and make the case. They can appeal to the consciences of the MPs of other parties and of the opposite opinion to heed the result of the referendum. But to promise to make it so is beyond the competence of any government and to believe otherwise is childish. This is why referendums are advisory.

In reply to Jim C:

Come in Jim, this is politics 101.

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/13867/the-referendum-and-the-...

"The UK has no codified constitution, so can have no binding rule to hold referendums for the approval of constitutional reforms. Nonetheless, referendums have mostly been used to settle questions of an indisputably constitutional character. This applies to the three UK-wide referendums: European Economic Community (EEC) membership in 1975, electoral reform in 2011, and this week’s EU poll. It applied also in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and the various devolution referendums held in the 1970s and since 1997 (our Whitehall Monitor blog provides the detail)"

This is such basic politics. All the court says was follow the process, it didnt stop the process permanently, it said have a vote, parliament needs to vote to give the government the mandate. That's how our democracy works.

In reply to Big Ger:


So why do you think they did it, was it
a) for shits and giggles?
b) because they thought it would get more people to vote to leave?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


It can be done eg the AV referendum. The difference being is the appropriate law was passed first. Of course the law could be repealed but that applies to anything.

In reply to Big Ger:


Corbyn (and May, come to that) was conspicuous by his absence from the channels that everyone else was using to get their message across, the media were barely reporting what he was saying at the time, let alone what he said many years before the referendum, his influence was about as big as his chances of becoming the next Prime Minister. Tony Benn didn't feature much in the media either and his excuse that he had died over two years before the referendum is on a par with "the dog ate my homework".

In reply to Roadrunner5:

The system is so Sovereign that it took a civil action funded by 1%ers to prod the mother of all parliaments into life. The plan was to shuffle their feet and look the other way as the pregorative was pulled out of the queen's arse. Hundreds of years of legal c itations don't mean shit nor constitutional process apparently on this little matter.

Thumbs up and cheesy grins all around for the our system. So clear, so transparent, so efficient that it required the judiciary to intervene on behalf of a couple of billionaires and a Kickstarter.

D

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Not sure what the argument is here, I already said, in my view, the government should just call the MPs bluff and make them a vote , right now, yes or no , will they support the government to allow them to trigger A50.

Having spent the whole evening on- line watching , reading and listening to commentators, politicians ( and constitutional 'experts' ) each arguing opposite positions, it is not as 'basic' as you would like to portray it.

However, the political commentators seem to be saying that they think the majority of Tory remainer MPs would actually vote with the Government.
Labour MPs face having a huge number of constituencies where their MP are out of step with their electorate, and the judgement seems to be, that the majority of Labour politicians would not want to go there, and would also vote with the government.
( some might say self preservation would trump Labour MPs principles )

On the question of legality, I of course prefer the 'experts' views that support the position that treaties are dealt with by the Royal Perogative, and this ruling( IF upheld) would set a precedent against that.
The very fact that there are 'experts' arguing opposites tells me that it is not as basic as you say.

In reply to Jim C:

Well there are 'experts' and then there are 'experts'. There is almost no position, no matter how absurd or minority, that the media can't find someone to present as an 'expert' and so create the impression of legitimate controversy or even balance- see the climate change debate.

In this case the only relevant 'experts' are the judges tasked with interpreting the law; and the brevity and rapidity of their judgement certainty looks like they didn't find it hard to come to a decision.

If the supreme court concur, I really hope Teresa may makes it abundantly clear that she accepts the outcome, and that the judiciary have been exercising their rightful role in our constitution, and should be respected for this; rather than further corroding the fabric of our society by allowing the poisonous views of the Mail to gain further legitimacy due to the government's failure to challenge them.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


They could have done one of:

1) Include a clause in the Referendum Act explicitly giving the executive ("crown prerogative") power to trigger Article 50 in the event of an "out" vote.

2) Include a clause in the Referendum Act explicitly *requiring* that the executive trigger Article 50 within a certain time period in the event of an "out" vote.

So no, it does not have to be the case that referendums are advisory.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




You still don't get it, Parliament cannot bind itself, that's one of the most basic rule of parliamentary sovereignty. Which somehow seem to escape most of the brexiteers.
So yes it does have to be the case that any UK referendum is advisory.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Neither of Coel's examples are of parliament binding itself since parliament could subsequently enact legislation to repeal either scenario.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
1) Include a clause in the Referendum Act explicitly giving the executive ("crown prerogative") power to trigger Article 50 in the event of an "out" vote.


Ah, you mean like an "enabling Act". Unfortunately they have no more force of law than a subsequent repealing Act.

And I should point out that such "Enabling Acts" used to change constitutions have a grim history in dictatorships. Still, if it suits your purpose the end justifies the means I suppose.


I do agree that our Constitution is a shambles though as some have said. I'm quite ashamed that no ministers stood up to the gauleiter press yesterday.