Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[doulikefish]

High court rules that may cant trigger article 50 without a vote in Parliament

[Paco]

Scenes.

To be fair, parties like the SNP and Lib Dems can afford to vote against it to play to their base. I don't think parliament should be blocking the results of a referendum, though. Would imagine virtually every Tory and most Labour MPs will go with it.

[Baxter Parp]

3 minutes ago, Paco said:

Scenes.

To be fair, parties like the SNP and Lib Dems can afford to vote against it to play to their base. I don't think parliament should be blocking the results of a referendum, though. Would imagine virtually every Tory and most Labour MPs will go with it.

It was only a an advisory referendum, not a binding one.  Difficult to see how May can get what she wants if this stands.

[sparky88]

8 minutes ago, Paco said:

Scenes.

To be fair, parties like the SNP and Lib Dems can afford to vote against it to play to their base. I don't think parliament should be blocking the results of a referendum, though. Would imagine virtually every Tory and most Labour MPs will go with it.

I agree so why isn't May allowing a vote. 

I think the whole charade is to stop article 50 being triggered at all.

[ayrmad]

10 minutes ago, Paco said:

Scenes.

To be fair, parties like the SNP and Lib Dems can afford to vote against it to play to their base. I don't think parliament should be blocking the results of a referendum, though. Would imagine virtually every Tory and most Labour MPs will go with it.

And what happens if we ever need Westminster to ratify a YES vote.

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, ayrmad said:

And what happens if we ever need Westminster to ratify a YES vote.

Why would Westminster need to ratify a Yes vote?

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

I agree so why isn't May allowing a vote. 

I think the whole charade is to stop article 50 being triggered at all.

UKIP will run the country if that happens.

[zidane's child]

Nigel Farage 

 

✔@Nigel_Farage

I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.

10:29 AM - 3 Nov 2016

Pleasing

[Paco]

8 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

And what happens if we ever need Westminster to ratify a YES vote.

Since when has backing yourself into a position of hypocrisy ever stopped politicians?

The SNP will vote against it because every MP will represent an area that voted Remain. I think that's a perfectly fair stance to take, and an easy one too when it shouldn't swing the outcome one way or the other.

MPs in England will have a tougher time of it, especially Labour where the voter base is divided. Tories will almost completely stick to party lines I think.

10 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

I agree so why isn't May allowing a vote. 

I think the whole charade is to stop article 50 being triggered at all.

She'll see it as a needless risk. She may personally not have believed in Brexit but she's realistic enough to know she's finished if she can't persuade Parliament to back it, given she is the Brexit PM. 

[Aladdin]

Whilst the SNP and Lib Dems would be the only parties prepared to vote against triggering Article 50, the absolute seethe in the Daily Mail comments section is a thing of beauty.

Comments include proclaiming one of the parties who brought the action a traitor who should go back to Brazil and requesting that the Queen march on the Houses of Parliament to overthrow the government and seize absolute power.

[strichener]

I expect this to be overturned on appeal. 

The implications of this ruling is that any government action requires the authorisation of parliament - that is unworkable.  The government of the day did not have to gain parliamentary approval to start the process that resulted in the Lisbon treaty although parliament had to ratify the actual treaty.  In the case of Brexit, the government should be required to gain parliamentary approval for the actual leaving of the EU but not to start the process.

Edited November 3, 2016 by strichener

[Alan Stubbs]

This will be great for the seethe factor but I do worry about it being used against Independence.

A "you don't respect our Referendums, why should we respect yours" type thing.

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

I expect this to be overturned on appeal. 

The implications of this ruling is that any government action requires the authorisation of parliament - that is unworkable. 

Nope.

The constitutional principles

7 - The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, Alan Stubbs said:

This will be great for the seethe factor but I do worry about it being used against Independence.

A "you don't respect our Referendums, why should we respect yours" type thing.

It was our referendum as well as "theirs".  Easy.

[Colkitto]

The Tories currently have a majority in the Commons. How does the arithmetic stack up for triggering Article 50 vote? 

[strichener]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Nope.

The constitutional principles

7 - The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament

Parliament has already approved the Lisbon treaty and all that it entails, including the method by which we can leave.  This isn't a case of the the government trying to over-ride legislation although reference to the UK constitution is, in itself, laughable.

[Aladdin]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

Parliament has already approved the Lisbon treaty and all that it entails, including the method by which we can leave.  This isn't a case of the the government trying to over-ride legislation although reference to the UK constitution is, in itself, laughable.

Its not the method of leaving that is the issue.  Its the fact that EU Law has been incorporated into domestic law since joining.  That domestic law would then be changed should Article 50 be triggered and only Parliament have the ability to do that.

[Alan Stubbs]

Well by voting against the result being implemented because of constituency/country results, they're not really recognising it as "our" referendum.

They're saying our constituents voted against it heavily, f**k your result. A stance I'm perfectly happy with in isolation but does have risks in the long term.

[renton]

6 minutes ago, Colkitto said:

The Tories currently have a majority in the Commons. How does the arithmetic stack up for triggering Article 50 vote? 

All over the place I suspect. Assuming the appeal fails it'll require the government to present some form of it's terms to the EU before parliament, and if that's a hard Brexit with all that implies? Then party lines may muddle, as MPs value self preservation and Labour MPs in particular will be wary of their own backyard electoral math, but if faced with a deal designed to save London and f**k the rest?

[Poo]

Liking the fact that the legal team all have different shades. Some real fireworks ahead.