Article 50 Discussion

[Guest]

I don't know either Ford, im hoping CD, King12345, or Alf Garnett might pop in and tell us? ......I think they are out stocking up on bricks to build this wall, so they can keep the foreigners out!

 

We have this covered though with the new airport runway.

i did ask them, but noone replied with anything of substance. similar to the conceding punch and judy

 

ps, hasnt the govt promised Nissan free eu trade, in return for its commitment? how wld that work without free movement?

[unclebulgaria67]

High Court ruling that Parliament must be consulted before article 50 can be triggered by government. But it has not said that it must be an act of Parliament and it will now be up to the Supreme Court to review the constituitional position.

 

I can't see that government can use Royal prorogative to sideline Parliament and therefore make their Brexit process unlawful. I cannot understand why any government wanting to make a massive change like Brexit, would not go through a full Parliamentary process and therefore reduce risk of further court challenges later on.

[fletch70]

Well I don't suppose we really expected any real clarity today as it was obvious that the losing side would appeal to the supreme court.

 

 

I am really not sure if its just me but it seems to me that there is being a slow move away from the rhetoric of hard brexit and more about possibilities of a successful negotiation on free trade which I think will involve free movement as well

 

There also seems to be stories of long years of uncertainty and volatility but it seems to me that all my politically aware life we have struggled from one crisis to another. The one thing we can be sure of is that the rich will still be richer and the poor will still be poorer- until of course the glorious day when I will deport all the Brexiters to mainland Europe

[silverfox1961]

I think this is going to cause a major uproar. It seems that Parliament is going to be given the vote (unless a challenge succeeds) on Brexit but the majority of MPs are backing remain.

 

MPs are elected to be the peoples representative in Parliament and for those members who were voted in by the voters who now want to leave the EU will cause these MPs problems.

 

I cannot see any Parliament surviving if they vote to remain as this would be in opposition to the people who put them there in the first place.

 

What a mess!

[unclebulgaria67]

House of commons and Lords would vote to accept article 50, but there might be conditions attached to this regarding Parliaments role in Brexit process.

[fletch70]

It is a mess

 

But

We vote people in to represent us not to do as we tell them, well that is how it works

An example, supposedly the majority or people, well certainly the majority of daily wail readers support capital punishment but we do not punish our MP's for voting against it, time and time again.

 

I still believe however, that if faced with the myriad of possibilities available ranging from hard to soft to remain, the only consensus is actually to remain- the divisions amongst leavers are great , some voted as a protest, some voted for a hard brexit, some thought as Boris suggested that the EU would roll over and we could renegotiate, some wanted a Norway style deal and some voted because they are racists who though that the streets would suddenly turn white and speak English. Those sorts of opinions must be challenged with logical and coherent arguments .

 

I am also convinced that if the referendum was held today the outcome would be significantly different

[unclebulgaria67]

Perhaps all referendums should be best of 3 votes held over 12 months ensuring debate exhausted ?

[WarrenBuffet]

The Revolution has begun! "True" democracy will win through.

[Guest]

yep, as expected. the prerogative is archaic imo.

imo though, even if the SC upholds the HC decision, i suspect that parliament may still vote through an Art 50 trigger. but, it then wld need to be voted on again (or subject to) re what type of exit (ie the resulting agreement). and then all the statutory legislation that wld be required to repeal/amend etc wld require the parl process.

the same applying if the SC says can use the prerogative. ie still a vote on type of exit, and the normal statutory process that wld be required re legislation.

some serious matters all round, for thought.

[Consumer dude]

Supreme court next month..

[fletch70]

Seems Corbyn has firmly nailed his coffin shut. He really should just be honest about his ambivalence (at best) towards the EU.

[tobyjugg2]

It is a mess

 

But

We vote people in to represent us not to do as we tell them, well that is how it works

An example, supposedly the majority or people, well certainly the majority of daily wail readers support capital punishment but we do not punish our MP's for voting against it, time and time again.

 

I still believe however, that if faced with the myriad of possibilities available ranging from hard to soft to remain, the only consensus is actually to remain- the divisions amongst leavers are great , some voted as a protest, some voted for a hard brexit, some thought as Boris suggested that the EU would roll over and we could renegotiate, some wanted a Norway style deal and some voted because they are racists who though that the streets would suddenly turn white and speak English. Those sorts of opinions must be challenged with logical and coherent arguments .

 

 

 

I am also convinced that if the referendum was held today the outcome would be significantly different

 

Depends on your definition of significantly fletch.

 

Simple fact is that almost all the polls/questionnaires said there were two main drivers

Immigration (the biggest issue by a long way)

UK law/parliament sovereignty - or more properly opinions on claimed 'Brussels imposed laws' (a poor but significant second)

 

From these polls etc and personal experience talking to many people who voted either way,

many of those who voted remain did this DESPITE issues on immigration.

 

So it seems clear to me that

The majority who voted - voted leave

Many who voted remain, still believed something needed tio be done about immigration (and I agree despite voting remain)

 

So the only options open to a legitimate government in my opinion is either:

 

Another referendum (possibly more than one with specific questions depending on the results of prior referendums to get the peoples clear desires) - HOW unlikely is that despite millions (on both sides) now undoubtedly believing they were deceived?

(How many can now realistically believe ANY of the major players wanted the truth out pre vote - or would honestly report the issues in any new referendum)

 

or

 

Brexit with full blown immigration controls and UK law preeminence

eg an Australian type system - whatever the impact to EU market availability AS VOTED FOR

If they dont impose this option, whatever the cost to EU market availability, then the government is not only failing those who voted remain,

they would also be failing everyone who voted leave to get control of the UK borders back.

 

 

 

 

 

As a relevant aside - Worst of all, what if the UK government negotiates premium access to the EU for 'the city's' international bankers (many of whom pay damn all UK tax as previously demonstrated and linked here) as Cameron did, at UK taxpayers expense, with all the risks remaining with the UK taxpayer (aka bailing out another financial collapse) while everyone else (those UK taxpayers and UK tax paying businesses) get tarrifs for EU market access, pay more for holidays and imports etc etc etc.

 

 

Camerons special deals for the city

"The ability for the UK to enact "an emergency safeguard" to protect the City of London"

A watered down report

https://www.ft.com/content/f6928492-7e4a-11e5-98fb-5a6d4728f74e

 

If you are really interested - then look up for yourself what would be given away to gain that - and who would benefit (the city) and who would see the reciprocated downside

[ericsbrother]

If you read the Bill of Rights of 1689 and Blackstones Commentaries on English Jurisprudence you will see that the rule of law in this country is a compact between the sovereign, parliament and the people. As parliament offered a referenduum to the people and they voted in a certain way then the executive who govern in the name of the sovereign can make the necessary commitments without further recourse to parliament.

 

This idea of the sovereignty of parliament is to prevent the monarch abusing executive powers as all monarchs did up until William III, not to prevent the people directly deciding on their future. Likewise the divisions of the army and navy would prevent parliament exceeding its authority and all powers could be exercised to prevent revolution overthrowing either the crown or parliament. This was understood and necessary up until Victorian times, when reforms made revolution very unlikely and we seemed to have forgotten our place (esp parliament)

.

There used to be a punishment for judges that ignored the law when making their decisions ( they didnt have to obey it, just consider it) but Tony Blair repealed that sanction when he abolished the Treason Act to protect his own neck for abusing his executive authority.

 

So, will the supreme court look at things differently to the High Court? There are no specialists in constitutional law in this country who sit on the bench and havent been for many years. Very few are involved in criminal law before becoming judges and the majority are commercial law specialists. This doesnt make them unfit to decide but does point to how similar their thinking is.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Andyorch
Paragraphs

[legalistic]

Eric's brother: I haven't read through the posts but understand that the referendum was only every advisory and consultative.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory

Personally, as a Remainer, I believe that just because we've already bought the pills for the overdose doesn't mean we have to take them.

[WarrenBuffet]

Very eloquently put legalistic, also I was of the understanding that the Uk had no written constitution? .... l could be wrong though.

[tobyjugg2]

Whatever the ins and outs of these LAWS

It is for the judiciary to interpret the LAW,

and parliament is not, and should not be above that LAW it has itself created and/or ratified.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Would anyone want to give ANY political party the right to apply their own chosen interpretation of ANY law according to their (politicians) personal leanings? Let alone any single or small group of politicians?

 

It would make a mockery of the parliamentary processes involved in creating legislation, which may not be perfect, but is a darn sight better that people like IDS and Boris being the word of the law.

 

I'm Judge Boris Dread/Judge Maggie Dread/Judge Theresa Dread

or God forbid, worst of all - Judge Jeremy Dread and I am the law ....

Certainly inspires dread in me.

 

 

 

Most UK Brexit and remain campaigners actually said all along and continue to state that Brexit and limiting immigration (one of the EU's fundamental freedoms) means loosing existing access to the single market (actually including Boris) - as also continues to be said by the EU leadership.

 

Anyone who claimed (let alone continues to claim) we could and can have everything we want for whatever we choose to offer/nothing, seems to be either incompetently clueless and deluded OR lying.

[obiter dictum]

An advisory referendum cannot circumvent normal legal and democratic procedures. The Government has an opportunity to reflect, and argue its case in the Palace of Westminster, which is only right for a country that is a Parliamentary democracy. What is so terribly disappointing is the resigned acceptance by many of the binding nature of this referendum even though it is “advisory”. Over and over again we hear the refrain “but we have to accept it”

[tobyjugg2]

An advisory referendum cannot circumvent normal legal and democratic procedures. The Government has an opportunity to reflect, and argue its case in the Palace of Westminster, which is only right for a country that is a Parliamentary democracy. What is so terribly disappointing is the resigned acceptance by many of the binding nature of this referendum even though it is “advisory”. Over and over again we hear the refrain “but we have to accept it”

 

 

As nothing to the furor that will occur if/when a majority in parliament vote down any unsavory (Boons for Bankers) Brexit proposals as their constituents representatives.

- What May was and still is looking to avoid.

 

They will of course vote via their personal interpretation of their constituents desires ......

 

Reaping the whirlwind

Like Syria - there is no good ending to this in sight and loads of treacherous and deceitful infighting yet to come.

[WarrenBuffet]

I honestly believe that Mrs May our PM is just playing a double bluff, after all she was a strong "Remainer" and very vocal about it before she became PM.

[Noah1]

I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

[WarrenBuffet]

Neither does everyone else Noah.

[Guest]

 

 

They will of course vote via their personal interpretation of their constituents desires ......

 

.

i think one mp has already publicly said something like that, despite himself voting exit in the ref, and was hinting at voting no trigger.

 

yeah, the enabling legis'n for the ref didnt make its result 'binding' (which it prob cld have done so if so desired at the time (whether though it wld've gone through as such?). makes sense, do the ref, see what it says, then let P decide in consideration?

[unclebulgaria67]

The Tories want to get Brexit done by Summer 2019, because the next election is due in June 2020. I don't see why the process of gaining a divorce after 40 years of marriage should be done to suit an election timetable. This could mean that the Brexit process is rushed and the UK ends up with a hard Brexit with WTO rules applying, custom borders put up (including Ireland/N.Ireland) and jobs under threat because of companies looking to move production to EU mainland.

 

It is not possible for any government to negotiate any deal with the EU in private, as details will be leaked. You will have a huge number of people involved in the negotiations with ministers/officials of 27 countries kept informed. As informations gets leaked, you will then have media reports and questions in Parliament, which would turn it into a complete mess. Not to mention the effect on the financial markets. Better to have an open debate with UK Parliament fully involved, so the government can avoid the problems mentioned.

[fletch70]

We could look at it this way, we knew mainly what our MPs views were on the EU before we voted them in last year and therefore it would be reasonable if they voted the same way, come a Parliamentary vote.

 

There is of course the possibility that some may vote tactically I.e SNP members voting for Brexit if they thought it could help independence.

 

I do have one question for those that shriek about loss of democracy ,even in 2014 a you gov poll suggested that capital punishment was still favoured by a majority who expressed a preference however the fact that MPs have repeatedly voted to keep the ban has not been some democratic crisis.

[Guest]

the bill of rights is also archaic, and is not a constitution in the modern sense. hence why there are calls for a proper written codified constitution rather than the 'compact' and unwritten as you say. unwritten has its advantages, for eg in that it can readily be amended to reflect society of the day. but, it has been moving that way (re codification). imo, the archaic prerogative is a get out clause for when the govt of the day wants to do something that the house wont (or may not) agree with.

they cld've made the ref result binding, but they didn't, or cldn't. therefore, it is left (open) for P to decide on it with question.