eastrunner

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


Brexit court defeat for UK government - BBC News

captainflack

I am surprised that legal experts are surprised. The argument seemed quite simple, if you understand the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

British citizens have rights that were given to them by successive EU treaties, which were debated and passed by parliament. If the government triggers article 50, and then does nothing or makes no deal with the EU, British citizens would lose those rights that parliamentary acts have given them, without parliament having any say.

Regardless of whether you are pro or anti brexit, the judgement is correct. In a parliamentary democracy, only parliament can remove citizens' rights granted by parliament. The government cannot arbitrarily do so. If the government won, it would have set a precedent that could later be used by a government to strip other rights without parliamentary approval.

I don't expect parliament to block brexit, but they may well attempt to put safeguards on it, or only trigger article 50 if the public gets to approve whatever final deal the UK gets. I don't think anyone who cares about democracy could have a problem with that. We've voted to leave largely based on the expectation of what deal might be obtained. Let the people who made the promises go and get the deal, and if it's as good as they promised, the public will approve it. If the public thinks it's worse than the status quo, they won't.

Johnnyboy11

My thoughts... The majority of voters chose to 'Leave the European Union', nothing more, nothing less. There were no caveats or provisos on the ballot paper, a simple binary choice, Remain or Leave. The Government must now figure out how best to implement this mandate, either within the law or by changing the law as may be required. But implement it they must.

nottmbantam

My thoughts are that it seems to have strengthened the Pound. Which I;m not happy about, get less Sterling for my Saudi Riyals today. I knew I should have transferred it last week.

Millhouse

not really... it was the bank of England data release. They have said no more rate cuts. didn't go up much though.

Bahtatboy

Nicely put, Cap'n. Regrettably, the latter argument -- although still wrong -- would be beyond the vast majority of those who voted Leave, even if the situation was spelled out to them in words of one syllable.

On the one hand letting -- or forcing -- Boris & Co to negotiate what they promised would be an interesting alternative to watching The Worst Auditions of X-Factor, but on the other, more serious, hand, it should be done by diplomats and civil servants who know what the **** they're doing, not witless, sound-byte driven, gormless idiots who got us in this mess in the first place.

I need a cup of tea.

scot47

Watching the contortions of the British Establishment these days makes me think that the House of Saud are better at this game than our own dear rulers.

BritInParis

Which is fine except it was the same Parliament who voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum to absolve themselves of the responsibility on the question of the UK's membership of the EU and pass it directly to the electorate. The electorate voted by a narrow but clear majority to leave the EU in an large turnout.

The European Communities Act 1972 can only be repealed via an Act of Parliament; likewise the incorporation of all existing EU law into UK law suggested by Mrs May's 'Great Repeal Bill' so Parliament will certainly be able to scrutinise the government's handling of the negotiations every step of the way as HMG will need to seek their approval at the end of the process.

Given that Article 50 is the only legal mechanism to start the Brexit process it seems nonsensical that this is anything but an attempt to force the government into a negotiation position that keeps us in as many EU institutions as possible as to effectively neuter the practical effects of leaving the EU.

If Labour and the other opposition parties want to go down this road then they need to be careful because push hard enough and it will force the PM to call a general election and if recent polls are even vaguely accurate then the Tories will be returned with a landslide majority and be given a free hand to do whatever they wish in regards to Brexit and anything else they fancy.

captainflack

Yes they did. But the referendum was always only ever advisory, from a legal perspective. Cameron's own government had clarified this a few years earlier over the Scottish referendum. The judges are doing their job, which is to follow the law. The attacks on them today are pretty scandalous. I would expect MPs to bear the referendum result in mind, and would be very surprised if they simply cancelled brexit. I voted remain, but even I would accept that the UK should leave. I live in the EU, and I also feel that most of the rest of the EU wants the UK out too, because we've not been the most constructive member anyway. They would like the UK to lose its seat at the table, but would probably be happy if the UK did a deal to stay in the single market - following the rules, but not making them, just like the Swiss and Norwegians do.

And why should parliament not do that? This is how democracy works. The vote was simply to leave the EU. Norway and Switzerland were frequently cited by leavers during the campaign as successful countries outside the EU, and they're in many of those same institutions. So it's reasonable to assume that is what at least some leavers wanted.

Considering the vote was 52/48, even if you ignore the £350m for the NHS and other cynical promises, it seems unlikely that all of that 52% were hard brexitters. So it's probably fair to say the most reasonable outcome, taking all things into consideration, is that the UK ends up with some kind of Norway or Swiss style deal.

If it doesn't, and hard brexit wins out, I can only thank my lucky stars I am already in the EU, because the UK is going to be well on its way back to being the sick man of Europe - the very reason it begged and lied to join the EEC in the first place.

lightandbitter2

Captain, you are implying thatyou will change your view and ggo withytherresultand know saying Iit mightbe good ffor the UK


Thatkind of mentality got us into the place we are now
globalisation in whatever form it takes cannot possibly succeed at they same time there Iis capitalism.

Capitalism is only successful as long as those that can be exploited and don'tknow it

Game is over, don'tknow what the aanswer is. but i do know is when its not in your face you have no need to see it. If you knew for surethat the jeans you are wearing now (actually probably cords) were made by a 9 year old doing 14 hours a day would your balls feel so ccomfortable in them?

Easier not to know, not to think.

But if you did could you wear them again

I have met some nasty people over my years but I can honestly say I have never met anyone that would walk past a starving dying 2 year old in the street.

We are doing that by millions. Check out how 20,000 children starve to death every??
Look it up its horrying.but because we dont see we do nothing.
We will spend a whole night and a lot of money trying to the best for a cat that's been knocked down or a bird with a broken wing on your doorstep. Because it's there tangible and emotional. But.......

BritInParis

Referendums are only ever advisory in a parliamentary democracy but you don't call one if you do not intend to follow through with the result. Cameron's mistake was being too clever by half and thinking he could scare the electorate into the status quo as he had done with the Scottish referendum.

The problem is that the judges aren't simply interpreting the law but making it by directing Parliament on how to act. The judgement today takes us into uncharted waters constitutionally and I fully expect it to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

I'm sure the EU would very much like us to be a silent partner, paying in and not making waves, but that's certainly not what the British electorate voted for.

The vote was to leave the EU. That can only be started by triggering Article 50. The debate on kind of Brexit will result from it is going to be had within Parliament over the following two years and there will be a vote within Parliament on the settlement as it will be necessary in order to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 as already mentioned.

Bahtatboy

Blimey, was that booze fuelled? I would have voted remain (at an intensity of 9/10 if that option had been available), but will similarly abide the result, provided that the necessary legal hurdles are jumped (and it is right that the courts have been asked what the hurdles are, and how high Parliament and Government need to jump to clear them -- that's a mature parliamentary democracy and legal system properly at work).

Those who vilify the judges are ignorant tossers.

But what's all the above got to do with our being inside or outside EU? Both the EU and UK are capable of ensuring that trade treaties and the like protect those who need it. Neither does it perfectly, but arguably by leaving the EU we can take a stronger stance where required (although, sadly, that may be up to spineless politicians, but that criticism is levelled at EU beaurocrats by Leavers, so there's little difference).

Or did I miss something?

DXBtoDOH

Well, I think that the ruling ironically (for the claimants) has made a hard Brexit much more likely.

The ruling substantially weakened Britain's negotiating stance with the EU, who will be emboldened to only offer either an extremely soft "Brexit" (access to single market but must accept FOM, pay into budget, accept EU laws, but won't have representatives in the parliament) - defeating the whole point of Brexit, or a full Brexit. They will think that Parliament won't vote for the latter and thus force Britain to accept a soft Brexit or cancel it altogether.

They'll be wrong, of course. If backed into the corner Britain will take the hard Brexit option. May will go to the country and get the majority she needs to deliver Brexit. Unlike in a referendum it's not a question of getting 50+% of the vote. All she needs is 42-45% for a landslide. As the GE will be Brexit referendum #2, UKIP will agree to support the Tories so their voters will vote for Tory candidates. Many working class Labour voters in the northern heartlands will vote for the Tories out of fury at attempts to block Brexit. Together, they will outnumber any Tories who switch to LibDem or Labour.

Eeyore

After a Leave campaign where hammering on about Parliamentary sovereignty shared top billing with "immigration, immigration, immigration", huge swathes of Leavers are suddenly spitting blood about Parliament being confirmed to be sovereign.

Why?

This is exactly what they voted to have more of (obviously we already had a huge amount of it anyway). For them to be so angry about it now does rather point to them not understanding what Parliamentary sovereignty actually means in the first place.

Doesn't it?

BritInParis

Or three unelected judges attempting to thwart the will of the electorate. That may not be legally true but for practical purposes that what it appears to be.