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

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ScepticScot
The "coupon election" approach would temporarily override party voting. Thus in 1918 anti-coalition Liberals got no support from the Liberal/Conservative coalition, and pro-coalition Liberals had no Conservative opposition.
And the usual grievance about "first past the post" is that it is supposed to be "unfair to small parties". If there were effectively only the two options, Leave or Remain, then it would not make much of a difference. The strength of the two groups in the Commons would reflect their strength in the country.

Coupon election doesn't have any authority in the UK. It is just about who the PM endorses. There is no way you could hold an election with just two choices.

52% of the country voted leave. That's hardly an overwhelming mandate.


Also, they voted 'leave', but without any idea of what 'leave' actually means in practice. I think it is right and appropriate for our elected officials to be able to debate and decide on what exact deal 'leave' is.


May's assertions that 'brexit means brexit' simply shows she has absolutely no idea what brexit means either.



We have a parliamentary democracy, we are not run by public referendums. This protects us from the rule of the mob. Which is a very good thing indeed.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Parties don't have any authority in the system either. They're just an agreement between people that they intend to work together. If there was enough coherence on the one side, their opponents would be almost obliged to work together on the other side. Or else get defeated in detail.

a reply to: anxiouswens

I sympathize for the people who won the vote to leave the EU.

Frustrating hardly describes it.

The legislation that enabled the Referendum (The EU Referendum Act (2015) did not specify what should happen after the result was announced in the event that Britain voted for 'leave'. So the law is not being broken. It did however specify that the result would be non-binding either way.

This to me seems cut and dried. The authors of the Referendum Bill knew that the Referendum would be advisory and anticipated nothing out of the ordinary happening if the voters went for 'leave'. And the ordinary procedure would be for Parliament to vote on it. Otherwise, the referendum is simply an opinion poll.

This was made quite explicit at the previous Referendum (on adopting the AV voting system). Parliament would have to vote on the proposed change to the law. We're in dangerous territory if we can just change the law on an on/off principle based on a show of hands.

The right-wing UK press are howling about 'betrayal', but even with this ruling no such thing has occurred. The irony is that they have just been served with exactly what they were demanding: The sovereignty of the British Parliament!

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ScepticScot
Parties don't have any authority in the system either. They're just an agreement between people that they intend to work together. If there was enough coherence on the one side, their opponents would be almost obliged to work together on the other side. Or else get defeated in detail.

The coupon election worked because it was cross party MPs agreeing to support a coalition government si it worked in both MP and parties favour. How many prospective MPs or constitutioncy parties would agree not to stand based on a single issue?

Party machinery was also less an issue then. No way Tory or labour would agree to uncontested elections based on remain/ leave.

originally posted by: Painterz
Also, they voted 'leave', but without any idea of what 'leave' actually means in practice.

That does not matter. We still don't know and that's what makes it all so interesting.

This will now become mired in party political crap. If there is a vote to overturn the referendum result by not triggering Article 50 then there will indeed be a crisis. I would expect the Government to resign and this would trigger a General Election.

Another General Election will see Labour being obliterated if current polls are anything to go by.

A General Election would be good to clear the air and produce a solid mandate.

Personally, I think if the referendum was re-run more people would vote for BREXIT. The world has not ended and the our "friends" in Europe have shown their true colours by their rudeness and contempt of British public opinion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

They voted for Cameron to build Parliament... Nobody voted for Theresa May to build HER cabinet..... the majority of seats went to a Tory Government lead by Cameron... since the voters did not receive a 5 year term from Cameron a new General Election should take place... in my personal opinion anyway.

a reply to: zGrimReapah
What you are advocating is a change in the constitution.
Under the present constitution, nobody was voting for Cameron except the voters resident in his constituency.
The rest of us voted for M.P.'s, and their votes in the Commons decide what government has a majority and therefore the power to govern. As long as they are there in the Commons, they can withdraw their support from the man at the top and give it to somebody else instead. That is the way it has been working for the last two centuries.

It is simply not practical to hold a General Election every time the man at the top is changed. How do you think that would have worked in 1940? "Hold the war for a moment, Herr Hitler, Mr. Chamberlain has just resigned. We think Mr.Churchill would make a good replacement, but we've got to hold a General Election first".

You're right of-course.. and I have a lot of disdain for May.. so I'm far from impartial.

I wasn't too keen when this happened with Brown either.. I think it's easy to get too caught up with the figure-head.

I know MP's got to vote for her, and you guys voted for those MP's... so it makes sense, but there were few options for you guys, the way I see it is you guys voted for a tory government under the leadership of Cameron, he's the guy that was chosen to represent the country.. but Theresa May had to win a popularity contest between 200 MP's and was elected to make the biggest decision the UK's had to face in a long time (Brexit)

Its a doozy for sure.

The UK public were asked for an opinion. They gave it.

That opinion is just that - opinion. Not law.

The opinion should be a mandate for elected representatives to then vote in Parliament to their constituents wishes.

However MPs have been voting against their constituents wishes for years now due to the whip system, so this then raises big issues.

The legal system is part of democratic process too, so decrying this ruling as undemocratic is bollocks.

If anyone wants to understand the reasoning behind today's judgement, here is a PDF of the Court's summary, which makes for sobering reading.

The Government tried to argue that the Crown (i.e., the Queen as represented by her ministers) had reserved the power to quit the EU when we signed up in 1972-3. The Court found that this was quite simply a fabrication (although they put it more politely). Since the Government had also acknowledged at the outset that the Referendum Act did not grant the executive the power to enact the consequences by fiat, the case was not lost so much as unwinnable from the very start.

This was a 'show trial' defended by a frightened Government that wanted to be seen to do something, anything, to maintain the pro-Brexit public's confidence. The Government will also lose at the Court of Appeal, if they are allowed to proceed with contesting what looks like a transparently appeal-proof ruling.

originally posted by: mindq


3 Hags if you count Nicola Sturgeon...another idiot in control and not wanted.

4 If you count in Merkle
But with a bit of luck Hillary won't make it! And apparently the German people

won't vote Merkle back in

originally posted by: audubon
The legislation that enabled the Referendum (The EU Referendum Act (2015) did not specify what should happen after the result was announced in the event that Britain voted for 'leave'. So the law is not being broken. It did however specify that the result would be non-binding either way.

It did not specify because they never thought it would happen.

They underestimated the dissatisfaction of the people.

This to me seems cut and dried. The authors of the Referendum Bill knew that the Referendum would be advisory and anticipated nothing out of the ordinary happening if the voters went for 'leave'. And the ordinary procedure would be for Parliament to vote on it. Otherwise, the referendum is simply an opinion poll.

*Simply an opinion poll*

Referendum ... A general vote given to the electorate on a single

political question, which has been referred to them for a direct decision

a reply to: eletheia

It did not specify because they never thought it would happen.

It did not specify what should happen because it didn't need to - it specifically stated that either result would be non-binding upon the Government or its successors. I.e., that the relevant laws would have to be amended via the normal route if necessary.

Edited to add: It appears that the idea that a 'Leave' vote would be enacted immediately appears to be yet another one of those Referendum lies we were all sold. From the official public leaflet issued before the Referendum was conducted:



The European Union Referendum Act (2015) said no such thing, so the Government knew it was making claims it couldn't deliver. The advisory note pictured above has no legal standing whatsoever. But it might account for the Brexit voters' current dismay and confusion if they naively took this statement at face value.

As I put on the other thread this has nothing to do with the referendum or the will of the people. Bexit is to be implemented and all this legal argument is about is the time, manner and the bargains we strike with the EU is not decided by the Conservatives alone. ie. ALL political parties are to be consulted on these issues, a debate in parliament. The only people against it are the Conservatives because they think only they should decide what's best for the country on Brexit.
That is what's constitutionally wrong and that's what the judgments about.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I agree with you on that point.

I am a big fan of Brendan O'Neill although recently he has crossed the line on a number of issues for me personally (eg 'free Anjem Choudary'). I have been waiting for his response to this all day. As I anticipated, he has turned into a box of exploding fireworks lol.

Let’s stop talking in euphemisms. Let’s park the blather about ‘procedure’ and ‘process’. What is happening here is that well-connected, well-off people are using the courts to stymie the democratic will. It is a straight-up assault on democracy, of the sort that when it happens in Latin America or Asia the very Remainers currently cheering our wise judges would shake their heads and say: ‘Why are those foreigners so uncivilised?’ The court case is a disgrace. It’s anti-democratic, anti-politics, fuelled by a dread of the demos and by feelings of ‘physical sickness’ for what the majority of people think and want. We make them puke.

The majority calmly discussed the EU, made a decision, and voted against it. And yet they’ve been ceaselessly defamed as ‘low information’ and ‘racist’ and have watched as their decision has been undermined and held up and relentlessly delegitimised by academics, lawmen and politicians. What must we do to make ourselves heard? To be taken seriously? If the ballot box doesn’t work, maybe it’s time for the streets?

An interesting read.

Article 50: down with this legal coup against the masses

The High Court trio of judges are led by one the Lord Chief Justice

'Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd' who founded a group dedicated to

furthering European intergration


www.dailymail.co.uk...


Now there's a surprise.

a reply to: Morrad

What must we do to make ourselves heard? To be taken seriously? If the ballot box doesn’t work, maybe it’s time for the streets?

Good old Brendan O'Neill. What an asshat. Still, it's just as well he has the internet upon which to propagate his spittle-flecked fulminations, otherwise he'd probably be going round in a loudhailer-equipped campaign van, and stopping to start fights with his own reflection in shop windows.

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

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

Yeah it's true the EU vote wasn't binding, but it's clear the result was an instruction to Parliament and must be respected. So if MP's do get to vote again, then they best deliver what the people instructed them to do.

There is no hard or soft Brexit, there is just Brexit, and that involves leaving the single market!

If we end up staying in the EU I predict riots and maybe another horrendous murder like Joe Cox.