To ask Constitutional Law experts their take on the Supreme Court ruling?

[Greta84]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38720320

Does that mean if MPs say no there will be no exit from the EU?

Can someone tell me why the Government brought this forward, to great expense to the public purse?

God knows Elendon, does anyone know how much this debacle has cost us?

Can someone tell me why the Government brought this forward, to great expense to the public purse?

Because they really really really wanted to be able to undermine democracy by utilising the royal perogative.

Democracy can be awfully inconvenient sometimes, and May wanted to be able to bypass it.

This is why the Government lost the case - all the constitutional law experts who should have been advising them were busy Mumsnetting.

But if they hadn't been MNing they would have told them there was no point in fighting the case because there was no way to win it. They wouldn't have won it for the government, just saved a lot of unnecessary time and expense.

Two theories. Either May has shit for brains, or she knew she was going to lose because she didn't have a case, and wanted to be seen to have tried for the hardest Brexit possible before allowing Parliament to potentially get a few weakening elements in.

I don't know whether I count as an expert for these purposes, but I've dealt with constitutional type stuff both in an academic and professional context for a while now. I am not field leading but I am in the field!

Totally agree with Eurus. It's all about placating the hardcore Brexiteers (and winning their votes). They must have known they would lose, but want to be seen to have been pushing for a hard Brexit before they were "thwarted" by the courts. I'm sure down the line, if negotiations look like heading toward a softer Brexit, they will find someone to blame for it, eg the SNP or the nasty EU wanting to punish us.

Might there be a bit of preparation for it all going tits up too? This gives them an option for saying 'if we'd have been allowed to follow our line it would all have been fine.'

Slightly off topic (and clearly no expert on diplomacy) but hey Elendon the same thought about Ireland and Scotland uniting has occurred to me a few times. A celtic resurgence is not impossible in such uncertain times - stranger things have happened.

Really pleased that the court has seen that this was a matter for the UK parliament to decide and not kowtowing to the devolved governments.

The UK joined the EU (or rather the EEC) as one unit and it has to leave the same way.

What happens afterwards will affect our constitution if Scotland et al wish to leave and that is something for all countries in the UK to decide. Personally I would prefer England to be devolved in all fairness.

What should happen now is that any Art 50 bill should include the agreeement for Parliament to vote again at the end of the negotiation process. If the deal on the table is a poor deal for the UK they should be able to reject it and keep us in the EU until we have a deal that makes economic sense. The details of the Art 50 are crucial in all of this.

Is that a possibility though?

I thought that the negotiation wouldn't start until A50 was triggered and then we had 2 years to complete. I don't think we can just reject the deal on the table and remain in the EU if we don't like it because there's no guarantee that the EU would agree to an extension.

Thrilled there's going to be a white paper. Never said that before.

Great news on the white paper!

I'm sure the government were advised of this and probably chose to ignore the lawyers and push ahead anyway. I'm hoping it gives a chance for most to have to vote to accept the final deal so more likely to lead to soft Brexit. Personally I hope this wipes out Tory mps in affluent areas that voted remain at the next GE. The libdems will be reborn from this mess. Labour need to get their bloody act together.

As far as I can tell the White Paper is pointless? There has been no time scale given so presumably will be out after Article 50 is triggered which is the point of no return anyway.

Great news about the white paper i feel more confident that Brexit has had to be softened

As for Corbyn he looked so incompetent I actually felt sorry for him for a few seconds he really really had to go even his supporters must be able to see this now labour are all over the place which is great for the Tories, UKIP and Libdems

I'm by no means sure the WP will be pointless. If done pre bill, then unless Sarah Healey has one up her sleeve, which she might, it will take a little time and will bring out complexities that need addressing down stream. If done post bill, it will still be a useful exercise in sorting out the issues for the ongoing negotiation.

And in both cases it increases transparency.

Oh just heard about the white paper! Pleased. So the constitutional issue is that Parliament has to vote to trigger article 50. May can't use powers under the Royal Perogative to do so. That is constitutionally right and proper. Enough MPs voting not to trigger it is very unlikely though. Even if their constituents voted remain they are under no obligation to do the same.

From here on, the issues are purely political, not legal. There are a number of unanswered legal questions but for political reasons they will be likely to remain unanswered. The white paper could just be a rehash of the Lancaster House speech. The bill is likely to be a one-line Bill (see Peter Bone's bill currently before the House, to be debated tomorrow) and any amendments will probably e voted down. Once the clock starts, any vote Parliament has on the deal will be illusory because it will be a Hobson's choice.

It was not obvious TM would lose -the decision was 8-3 of the judges, so nearly 30% agreed she was right. NI, Scotland and Wales lost 11-0, so they wasted money arguing.
Vote can only be on article 50, govt cannot guarantee anything (even remaining in single market/customs union) as subject to EU agreement.
There is no return after article 50 (subject to potential legal challenge), so reject deal in 2 years and WTO rules are in.

Theresa May didn't lose. She had nothing to do with the case. Gina Miller brought it against David Davis in his role as Secretary of State, and it was a process issue not a competition. The devolved institutions didn't all "lose", either, the A-G for NI actually supported the government's position.

It was absolutely the right decision and I think it was politcally- motivated grandstanding from the government to take it to the Supreme Court.

Parliament is sovereign. Yes the government does have various prerogative powers, which have a pretty broad scope in international affairs, but we entered the EU via an Act of Parliament and any use of prerogative powers that ran contrary to that act would completely undermine parliamentary sovereignity. Only parliament can undo what it has done.

Plus, its established common law that prerogative powers cannot be used to take away pre-existing rights and triggering Article 50 will ultimately lead to a loss of certain rights.

There's little to no chance or parliament voting against brexit, this is just a case of making sure leaving the EU is undertaken in line with our most basic constitutional principles.

The government was being fucking daft if it honestly thought otherwise.

Sybis I agree with what you wrote and would also hope that the White Paper includes provisions that Parliament should note be able to trigger Article 50 until it is satisfied that Mrs. May and her Government have a proper, realistic plan for the Brexit negotiations instead of a "red white and blue Brexit" (which are also the French and USA colours as I'm sure we all know) that has been tested by Parliament's due process. I hope it also includes a vote on the deal that the Government proposes to agree with the EU, and how it plans to replace the trade deals that have been lost by Brexit.

Tyto, I sympathise but fear your wishes may be the triumph of hope over experience.

I am am ambivalent about this one. Mainly because for as long as we are part of the EU, parliament is not sovereign but is subjugated to EU directives.

Invoking article 50 will take parliament out of EU control. Thus it is necessary and any obstacles are in fact self defeating.

OTOH for the PM to try and by-pass parliament would not bode well for the future.