This is bullshit :- brexit

[EveOnline2016]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-supreme-court-ruling-judges-defy-theresa-may-and-hand-power-to-parliament-a7542406.html

I can see the MP voting to stay in.

As a Leaver I don't have any issue with parliament voting on article 50.

Ridiculous oversight when drafting the referendum which is now causing this issue but it is what it is so we have to accept it.

Totally disagree with papers who criticise the judges on a personal level.

I do find it though a total waste of time and money.

Lark my mistake?

I thought there was an appeal to the ECJ from a SC decision.
My reasoning is that the Scottish Named person legislation went to the SC and there was talk of it then being taken on to the ECJ???

After a GE too, the PM can't just say that the electorate voted for the manifesto, so I'll wave my hand and everything in the manifesto becomes law.

There wouldn't be much point in Parliament and MPs.
Even after a GE, the ruling party has to propose bills in Parliament and all the MPs have to scrutinise - and can try to amend - each bill before voting whether to make it law.

Jeremy Corbyn is planning to go against what his constituency voted!

Olympia it wasn't an oversight. They knew there were all sorts of constitutional hurdles to leaving but David Cameron wanted a quick referendum to get it out of the way and wasn't prepared to give the Leave win any credence by preparing for it.
Not so much oversight as wilful blindness.

AnUtterIdiot yes, I see that distinction - interesting.

don't see how the NP legislation could go to CJEU then, but that is not the premise of this thread, I appreciate

I love how the Telegraph think the court has "defied Teresa May" and "handed power to parliament" - do they think she's some sort of supreme leader and we've done away with the democratic process?

"All this serves to do is delay the inevitable, increase uncertainty and make it harder for businesses to forward plan." Which leavers ought to have considered when voting leave. Unless they want their sovereign country not to follow the law.

Derxa - it's political chaos anyway. At least this way, there will be a formal process, consultation and legal processed which is enshrined in our democracy rather than a small few led by May deciding the entire process.

The howling I'm seeing here from leavers is that this is just a bit more admin contrary to the will of the people, but that is not the case.

Admittedly, politics is not my strong point and I have been studiously avoiding any news about Brexit because nothing is more guarenteed to ruin my day than hearing Leavers try to justify what they did, however, my understanding is...

May (unelected) and her cabinet (unelected) wanted to trigger Article 50 on their terms. AFIAK they were going for a 'hard' brexit. No-one voted for a hard brexit, there is nothing to say that the majority of Leavers want a hard brexit, we weren't given any option to vote on how we wanted to leave.

This ruling means that May now has to debate Article 50 and the terms of leaving with our elected parliament, who now get to push for what they and their constiuants want from brexit.

Did you want bendy bananas and burnt roasties but also wanted to keep workers rights and the freedom of movement for workers? Awesome, write to your MP and ask him/her to push for a brexit that will allow this.

There is very little chance that your MP will vote against brexit if your constiunacy voted for it, but they will get a chance to have their say over how we leave.

Taking the power away from May to do whatever she wants is no bad thing. That is not and should not be how our democracy works.

I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but that is my limited understanding of what this ruling means.

I can't honestly see this changes much??

May (unelected) and her cabinet (unelected)

They aren't unelected. We don't vote for a president

The people who voted leave wanted Parliamentary sovereignty back. The process of triggering article 50 should be decided by Parliament. People can't pick and choose when Parliament should be involved. It's highly unlikely that Article 50 will be voted down but this was the right decision IMO.

Yabu, this is parliamentary sovereignty and democracy.

Theresa May is not unelected. The Conservatives were voted in overwhelmingly at the last election.

I am not a Tory voter or a Brexiteer but pedantically this annoys me!!

A referendum is a show of hands. A poll. Its not an election and does not create a law. It is not even legally binding.

Parliamentary Sovereignty was the point of Brexit, wasn't it? Or was is all about "out with those foreign sorts" after all?

Off to read the comments section on Daily Mail, it'll be Dumbageddon.

There's an important difference between referring a point of EU law to the ECJ and an appeal.

Has the revocability of Art 50 (a question of European law) been in issue before the Supreme Court, that point could have been referred. Once decided either way by the ECJ, the SC would then have carried on with its process, taking the answer into account.

In the event the parties were content to proceed in the Miller case on the assumed basis that Art 50 was irrevocable. The Govt would probably have preferred to say it was revocable (it would have made their arguments on sidestepping Parliament easier, as the consequences of an Art 50 notification would have been less final). But it would have been unpalatable for the Govt to have that point referred to the ECJ, so they didn't take it.

So that issue cannot now be determined in these proceedings, which have been finally determined by the highest court in our jurisdiction, but as others have said the revocability point may be up for grabs in another context.

Such a bloody mess. Why weren't these things investigated and decided before the referendum? They made us go into this whole pile of shit blind without any plan or idea what would happen. I'm not sure MPs will vote to remain especially after the referendum results.

^^Sorry, should have said the revocation of an Art 50 notification, not revocation of Art 50 itself.

Such a bloody mess. Why weren't these things investigated and decided before the referendum? They made us go into this whole pile of shit blind without any plan or idea what would happen. I'm not sure MPs will vote to remain especially after the referendum results. Agree.

The more intelligent leavers - there are some - understand that the ruling is a good thing. See Gisela Stewart's comments:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/supreme-court-decision-article-50-triggered-parliament-brexit

Theresa May has not been elected Prime Minister. Theresa May was voted in by her constituents as their representative. Conservative MPs were elected by their constituents as their representatives. As the Conservatives have a majority, they are able to choose which MP will be Prime Minister and she is able to choose her cabinet. The Prime Minister and the cabinet were not elected directly to those positions by the electorate.