This is potentially a game-changer!

[pensivepolly]

Breaking news from the High Court on Article 50: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules

I voted to Remain and was absolutely devastated by this result. The ruling yesterday made me furious. A ruling by the elite for the elite.

Her reasons for bringing the case are irrelevant.
This is not about judges being 'pro-European' it is a matter of law.
That is why the judiciary is independent.
As our constitution is unwritten it is constantly reviewed. This is part of an ongoing struggle between the executive and the legislature. To make it all about Brexit is to miss out the wider picture.

EVEN IF what you are saying is correct chris and Mrs Miller is cynical in her claim, the fact is that in a democratic country Mrs Miller was within her democratic rights to bring the case. This is something that is protected in british law like the right of the Hillsborough families had the right to take legal action against the british government because they thought it was wrong.

This is in effect only another avenue to freedom of expression and thought. Something the press are really rather fond of defending when it suits them.

The courts protect the people from government and abuses of power. This is partly why there is a backlash against the lack of an enquiry re: Orgreave 'even though no one died'.

Ironically many of the same people who are unhappy about the lack of enquiry for Orgreave and are using the same argument are also people who are angry about this ruling. The courts are there to allow people to stand up to government.

The judges have to act only on the law that the politicians make. They can only go on historical precedence which is our constitution. They can not just make it up according to their personal political beliefs despite what the newspapers are saying.

The country has checks and balances to power which stop the courts or the executive or parliament doing things it should not.

I take it Chris, that you have read the judgment in full and why the judges concluded that article 50 could not be used in this case. The reasoning was explained. The judges did not even look much at the claimants cases themselves ruling that it was primarily a constitutional matter and the claimants cases were second to that.

I voted to Remain and was absolutely devastated by this result. The ruling yesterday made me furious

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in my own circle this was a common reaction yesterday.

Can you explain why?

The courts can not just rule the way that makes people happy. This is the point.

They can only rule in the way the law directs them.

YY - I'd like to understand why remain voters would be furious about the ruling yesterday.

Likewise. I could understand it if you're against parliamentary democracy and/or an independent judiciary, and think we should simply elect the executive and leave them to it for their term, with accountability only coming at the next election. Then it would make sense: I might not agree, but there'd be logic to the position. But otherwise no.

I appreciate that some Remainers are very concerned about the response from tabloids, certain Leavers etc. That's understandable. But when you say you're devastated at the result, you mean that you wanted the judges to come up with what would have been a legally nonsensical verdict (and it really would have been, May had no leg to stand on). I get why hard Brexiters would want that, because this obviously makes hard Brexit less likely. But why would a Remainer, unless they held particular views about the executive being able to act without scrutiny from the other branches?

tbf, my remain voting friend texted me "so brexit's apparently not happening now" yesterday, so it's possible that the facts of the ruling aren't yet widely understood.

YY - I'd like to understand why remain voters would be furious about the ruling yesterday. I think it's because the country were deceived from the very beginning. The referendum was merely advisory and this was not made clear. Also that what happened yesterday, was an utterly shameful action to quite simply prevaricate and delay (or even as Mrs Miller claims, provide a springboard to overturn the referendum results), and absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary democracy as a pp has stated.
It will lead to a general election and more instability. That is my fear.

the country was* deceived

"That was a constitutional promise"

"They constitutionally promised to abide by the will of the people"

No such thing as a 'constitutional promise'. You've just made that up.

It's like a pinkie promise for grown ups

It is likely now than not that there will be no Brexit.
Parliament will enact leg for a second ref on a Brexit if sorts versus none. None will win and we will all carry on as before.
I can the teeshirt slogans already.

How can making sure a major constitutional change is debated in the UK Parliament be nothing to do with parliamentary democracy?????

Statements like that beggar belief.

prevaricate and delay = discussion, debate, scrutiny. The whole point of Parliament.

Are we are accused of being patronising when we point out the total and complete lack of understanding involved in a statement like that.

Good grief.

Right, so it would appear that the reason you're upset about yesterday is because you think it had nothing to do with parliamentary democracy. The thing is though, that's not true at all.

May's plan was to force through a Brexit of her choosing and at her preferred time, without Parliament getting a vote on the matter. Her argument for why this is ok basically said that the executive can, at any time, simply decide we're leaving the EU (and actually, by extension, that we're going to ask to rejoin...) without any reference to Parliament. It would theoretically mean that eg Blair could've woken up one day in 2001 and decided he was going to use the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50, without Parliament being able to do anything to stop him. Pretty much nobody, when it comes down to it, actually thinks this is a good idea and something the executive should be able to do. It's completely undemocratic. A huge part of our system is that the legislature (Parliament) and the judiciary get to act as a check on the executive. That's what parliamentary democracy is. And that's why the government's legal case was so poor.

By all means be opposed to that, but a ruling forcing the executive to submit to parliamentary scrutiny is actually the definition of parliamentary democracy.

tbf, my remain voting friend texted me "so brexit's apparently not happening now" yesterday, so it's possible that the facts of the ruling aren't yet widely understood.

There is a lot of misunderstanding going around.

A huge part of our system is that the legislature (Parliament) and the judiciary get to act as a check on the executive. That's what parliamentary democracy is. This is true but the intention behind the action was to stop Brexit pure and simple.

It would seem logical now that the article 50will be put to a binding ref as an act of Parliament.
Would it win again. My logical says no

Ergo. Bye Bye Brexit. Sorry to have wasted your time but we will pass.

Let's all go round to David Cameron's house and throw custard pies. He started it, didn't think it through and then buggered off. But never mind.
Mps and the members of the judiciary will be OK. Meanwhile people's jobs and livelihoods are at risk because of this fiasco.

The intention is irrelevant. This isn't about emotion it is a matter of law.

Whatever the intention, Parliament is sovereign and must be allowed to vote. That is how our democracy works.

Ergo. Bye Bye Brexit. Sorry to have wasted your time but we will pass.

I think you are going to be very disappointed

I'm wondering - derxa how do you see Brexit? Is it a one off, pull the plaster thing?

The reality is: it's huge, and hideously complex, with all sorts of interests to be heard (in no particular order, Nissan, Northern Ireland and Scotland, exporters, financial services, voters, unions, the parties, the EU27, Rest of World...)

I think it's easy to get caught up in this idea we must act now, and delay will just make the process more difficult and mean it occupies too much of our collective headspace. Realistically though, even with a clear plan, it'll take upwards of 10 years (Gus O'Donnell, ex of civil service's estimate, not mine) to make it happen, and potentially further decade(s) of negotiation on regulation, laws and trade agreements.

Launching ourselves into that process with no parliamentary scrutiny is actually frightening, to me, anyway. So I welcome the ruling.

BTW, Deir Dos Santos elitist haridresser claimant in the action, voted Leave. Here's his statement from yesterday:

"I've never challenged the result of the referendum. In fact I voted for Brexit in the referendum for the sole reason that I wanted power to be returned from Europe to the British parliament."

"But I did not think it was right for the government to then just to bypass parliament and try to take away my legal rights without consulting parliament first."

Whatever the intention, Parliament is sovereign and must be allowed to vote. That is how our democracy works. I understand that but a lot of people in the country will see it as a lot of jiggery pokery by people they don't trust in the first place.

dextra I'm surprised at how many
People are de facto assuming MP would NOT support people choice and would vote against art50, despite the referendum.
So many MPs have change their tune since the vote, incl the PM. So why do you think parliament voting=no Brexit??
And why is TM seen as the only person who will implement Brexit?

I'm wondering - derxa how do you see Brexit? Is it a one off, pull the plaster thing? How bloody patronising.