Govt has to go back to Parliament over Brexit

[whoputthecatout]

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

Well, that's set the cat among the pigeons.

Govt. will appeal but the referendum is only advisory constitutionally so the remainers will be hand-rubbing in glee, sensing an opportunity to thwart the referendum result.

[iwilldoit30]

It shouldn't be about that, it should be about the fact that a vote now means nothing!! Is that not scary?

[PortiaCastis]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-appeal-government-high-court-supreme-theresa-may-a7394936.html
Government are appealing

[oompaloompaland]

What was the point in voting in the first place if the decision can be overturned? Why vote on anything. I thought we were a democracy. It could cast doubts on all results, general elections etc. Madness.

[redshoeblueshoe]

We had a referendum in Manchester, to see if we wanted a directly elected mayor. The electorate voted No.
The government didn't hear that - so we are now going to have an election to get a new Mayor.

[WorstWit]

It was bloody obvious this was going to happen- you know all the Brexiteers banging on about parliamentary sovereignty for the past year? Well, this is what parliamentary sovereignty is.

This is (partly) why referenda are and always have been a nonsense in the UK.

[WorstWit]

"It could cast doubts on all results, general elections etc"

No, it couldn't. Referenda are non- legally binding.

[mollie123]

um - there are already at least 3 threads (goady ones at that) already.

[cdtaylornats]

Presumably it will now go to the supreme court.

Given that the MPs are supposed to represent the people and the people spoke then if the MPs vote to overturn the people then there will have to be an election with it being fought on Brexit/Stay lines.

[Daisyonthegreen]

There will be a protest demonstration outside Parliament on November 23rd at 10 am .
Please put on your social media.
Please attend if at all possible.
Google Brexit feet in London.
Thank you.

[JustAnotherPoster00]

Wait so the brexiters are losing their shit because an British court ruled that the British parliament has the right to a vote on the terms of brexit thats democracy, I thought they wanted British laws and British courts cos of sovereignty, go figure

[twofingerstoGideon]

Some of the comments on here suggest a poor understanding of what the referendum was and what yesterday's judgment means.

• The referendum was advisory.
  
• Yesterday's judgment has done little more than confirm that we are a parliamentary democracy and that the government has no right to trigger A50 without consulting parliament.
  
• As others point out above, Brexit supporters voted for British law. This is it, in action.
  
• Yesterday's ruling does not mean that Brexit will not go ahead.
  

I am genuinely shocked at the lack of political understanding in this country and even more shocked at the eagerness that some of 'the people' (see diagram) have for rushing headlong into the unknown without any sort of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in view of the economic shocks we've already seen. There is no consensus on what Brexit means. This was amply demonstrated at the Tory conference.

This is the biggest constitutional issue this country has faced for decades. Of course parliament must be consulted.

[twofingerstoGideon]

It shouldn't be about that, it should be about the fact that a vote now means nothing!! Is that not scary?

This is the sort of hyperbole peddled by newspapers like the Express and Mail. It is rabble-rousing hysteria.
It is not a fact that a vote means nothing (particularly in light of the fact that the referendum was only advisory).

[cdtaylornats]

The next move will be a trip to the Supreme Court.

Then I would assume the losing side will take it to the European Court.

Consulting parliament in this case means nothing. One side voting on a negotiation is 1 side to few. As for democracy a group of unelected people just asked another group of unelected people to slow the progress of the will of the people.

[twofingerstoGideon]

Consulting parliament in this case means nothing.
Then there's no point getting all aerated is there?

[Suppermummy02]

The remoaners have a way back now. They 'agree' with the will of the people and we should Brexit. But they still want in the single market, which means freedom of movement aka unlimited immigration, then we also need to be governed by the ECJ so no parliamentary democracy, and of course we will have to pay for all those privileges so no reduction in tax payer contributions. Hmmm sounds just like being in the EU .

Basically parliamentary democracy is trying to insist we dont have parliamentary democracy. And the Judiciary is complicit. I dont get it?

[InfiniteSheldon]

I see that stupid pie chart all the time on here why? A billion people around the world couldn't vote in the referendum why aren't they included if we include people not elliglible? Anyone who couldn't be arsed a: can't be expected to count and b: if you really want to include them can readonably be counted on the same percentages as leave/remain so again pointless including them. That pie chart is a typical misuse of statistics and for Leavers reaffirms Remainers elitist pomposity and for Remainers gives a false sense of superiority. Stop demeaning yourself Gideon I've read a lot of your posts you're better than that.

[twofingerstoGideon]

The point of the pie chart is that we have heard the phrase 'the people have spoken' ad nauseum since 24th June. Younger people were excluded from voting (MPs blocked a proposal to allow 16 and 17 year old to vote in this referendum). They are also 'the people'. EU citizens who have lived in the UK for decades, who pay taxes here and are included in population counts are also 'the people'.
Language is powerful. Using phrases like 'the people have spoken', which is spattered all over Brexit-related social media, mainstream media etc. is deliberately being used to imply that the majority of the population are behind this when the reality is that a fairly small minority of those eligible to vote are behind it.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

Fully agree with you Gideon.

We all knew at the time (or should have known had people been paying attention) that this was an advisory vote. We were told it would then need to go before parliament.

So frankly it was rather a shock when Theresa May decided that such a fundamental change for our country could be acted on without parliaments involvment and that the government and not parliament - who represent us all - could get to dictate the terms under which we leave.

[Petronius16]

With so many threads on this topic I shall be repeating myself.

The vote doesn't change as the Appeal Judges emphasised.

In 1972 our sovereign Parliament passed a law. In 2016 a majority of people voted to repeal that law.

Parliamentary law needs Parliament to repeal it. Simple.

[Hellmouth]

twofingerstogideon I really could not have put it better myself.

In my opinion, if the referendum was not going to be advisory only, they should have made it mandatory and the winning side would need to have at least 60% of the vote.

51.8% of people who bothered to vote is not an overwhelming mandate, and it really annoys me that the newspapers and politicians keep saying that.

Regardless of being a remainer or a brexiter, we should all be happy with the court's ruling. It means that Theresa May can't just do whatever she likes without consulting parliament as parliament has sovereignty, and are our elected representatives. There you go, that's democracy for you.

If you still find that difficult to understand, there are things called dictionaries out there.

[Petronius16]

Why thank you Twofingers – you've touched on something that's been bothering me for a little while. Forget Brexit, let's concentrate on the precedent of allowing the Royal Perogative to be used whenever government thinks fit.

There's an important principle here. Who rules? Parliament or the Crown? I thought we did that battle centuries ago.

Yes, it has been used many times by various governments but only in cases where it is unlikely to be challenged – ever since 1611 when it was established the law lords could challenge.

Just think what PM's like Blair, Cameron and even Major could've have done with that sort of power.

[Suppermummy02]

Parliament is not full of our elected representatives. Their are around 760 mainly life peers in the House of Lords and only 646 elected MP's that take up their seats in the House of Commons.
In 2015 the house of commons voted 544 to 53 in favour of holding a referendum. The previous Prime Minister promised us that whatever the result of the referendum was, it would be enacted.

Theresa May is not doing whatever she wants she is saying she will enact the will of the people as expressed in a legal referendum and trigger article 50. And it is, the will of the people, because the referendum was won by 1,269,501 votes on a record breaking turn out of 72.21%, in England every region outside of London voted to leave the EU.... it was not a small majority. Additionally the pro EU political parties had a spending limit of £16.2 million and the leave parties had a spending limit of £4 million so their wasn't even equality in the campaigns.

Once article 50 is triggered, then Parliament should and will have a say in the negotiation of our new relationship with the EU but it should not have a right to overrule a democratic referendum of the people. The three judges are wrong and hopefully the supreme court will overturn that judgement and bring democracy back to the UK, otherwise this country is going to be in for a lot of trouble for years to come.

[twofingerstoGideon]

it was not a small majority.
I beg to differ. Most countries set a threshold for a 'majority', eg. at least 60%.

so their wasn't even equality in the campaigns. It wasn't just about finance though, was it? On side had a big red bus with an outrageous lie painted down the side of it and the support of most of the tabloid press.

The three judges are wrong. How?

otherwise this country is going to be in for a lot of trouble for years to come. We are arguably going to be in a lot of trouble for DECADES to come if we do Brexit.

[claig]

Good posts Supermummy02

twofingerstothepeople and others, have you seen Iain Duncan Smith doing an excellent job explaining what he thinks is wrong with the judgement. If only he was this good when he was leader, he would have won.

[Suppermummy02]

claig Yes, IDS explains it quite well in that clip.

twofingerstoGideon - We will have to disagree, you think 1.27 million people is a small majority, I dont.

Which countries have a referendum threshold of a 60% majority? Remember we joined the EU without a referendum so your suggesting we would be kept in it against the will of 59.9% of the population. Isn't that a recipe for revolution? What happened to democracy?

One side had a big red bus with an outrageous lie painted down the side of it
And your point is? Both sides made outrageous claims that can be debated were untrue. That's freedom of speech for you, challenge it in debate, which it was.

The three judges are wrong I am not saying they were wrong on legal grounds because I am not a lawyer. I am saying they are wrong on democratic grounds because they are telling the executive they cannot execute the result of a referendum created by an act of parliament which delegated our continued membership of the EU to a referendum of the people. Which resulted in a majority of 1.27 million people.

Brexit might be turbulent for a few years but so far seems to be pretty good for the UK. Being forced to stay in the EU against the will of the majority of the electorate will be turbulent for decades.