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

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...) Really???!! I had no idea. You forgot farming which of course is completely irrelevant.

Not meant! I am interested - a number of (Remain-voting) people I know are like "just do it now and then we can get on with life". And I wonder just how many people see this as something of temporary consequence. You can see that in the threads that keep getting punted from AIBU into the Brexit board.

I guess your answer is no, btw?

It will lead to a general election and more instability. That is my fear.

If May had used the Royal Prerogative for a50, then that danger was still there. Parliament would have been forced one way or another to make a stand about its own relevance and the importance of democracy. The odds of an early GE have increased due to the ruling but I think this would have happened anyway due to a crisis being triggered in some other way.

This was the problem with even considering the royal prerogative in the first place and taking an authoritarian approach and not because of the court ruling which only serves to highlight what the problem actually is here: the attempt to make parliament marginal and bypass it.

The court is not to blame here, but the circumstances that led to it even being asked to make a ruling.

As I say, May's job was to heal divides not fuel them in the tactics she uses to ensure Brexit.

But I guess the original question still stands - are you furious about this because it might mean an early general election? Or because Gina Miller voted Remain? Does Dos Santos' intention change your view?

This is true but the intention behind the action was to stop Brexit pure and simple

Even if that were true, and only one of the people who launched the action has said as much, that doesn't change the fact that yesterday's legal decision was about parliamentary democracy.

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.

Yes, most likely. We could all do our part there by not claiming that the no brainer of a decision had nothing to do with parliamentary democracy when it blatantly did, though.

Seriously, I understand that lots of people don't understand and that some people, those who want hard Brexit and/or oppose parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of the executive will inevitably be upset about this. But assuming you don't fit into any of these groups, what you are basically saying is that you wish the court had made a completely legally incorrect decision, in order to allow May to undermine our parliamentary democracy. In a way that you don't even support!

Seriously, I understand that lots of people don't understand and that some people, those who want hard Brexit and/or oppose parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of the executive will inevitably be upset about this. But assuming you don't fit into any of these groups, what you are basically saying is that you wish the court had made a completely legally incorrect decision, in order to allow May to undermine our parliamentary democracy. In a way that you don't even support! Probably. At heart I'm angry that our government do not know what they are doing and could not run a piss up in brewery. Ordinary people's lives are being determined by people like Gove, Cameron, High Court judges etc. The elite in other words. I'm off to campaign for Trump not really

And as if to prove my point we now have a LEAVE supporting Tory resigning over government policy to pursue hard brexit and ignore parliament.

Quite something isn't it.

According to the Times "[he] is understood to have considered joining the court action as an interested party to represent the views of MPs in parliament who wanted a say in the government’s stance on Brexit."

"“The campaign to give parliament the right to determine our future relationship with the EU is not about reversing the referendum result,” he wrote last month."

"Nor is it about subverting the will of the British people, or having a second bite of the cherry. It’s about the sovereignty that I and others cherish, a sovereignty that resides principally in the House of Commons and in its ability, when given the opportunity, to inform and direct the government of the day.”

GE here we come....

Just to be clear that is a quote from Leave supporting (resigned) Tory MP Stephen Phillips.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-resigns-over-brexit-policy-differences-bjm0t9vmp

One reason to vote Remain was to avoid all this hassle.
This kind of hassle & talking about Brexit for next 10 yrs was a big reason in my mind to vote Remain.

This case really has saved a lot of future trouble, btw. Can we imagine what could have happened if we found out in April 2018 that May had no powers to trigger Article 50 & the whole thing was then void & had to start over? That really would be failed piss-up in the brewery.

derxa, dissatisfaction with that should be directed and challenged in the right way and not in reaction to Brexit.

This feeling can and will be exploited by the likes of Arron Banks (in fact I think he'll be pleased at the ruling for this reason).

There IS a problem with there being effectively a ruling class.

The claimants in the case - including Miller - are not actually part of that class, so anger at them is misplaced.

It comes back to social inequality and lack of opportunities which anti-intellectualism and anti-liberalism actually support rather than challenge.

The root problem of our political system is a Great Accountability Deficit.

We ironically, need the courts even more - but we are being prevented from this by cuts to legal aid.
We ironically, need a free and fair press even more - but we are getting stitched up by click bait and the tabloids who are opposed to proper investigative journalism because they are up to their necks in dodgy practises
We ironically, need MPs to break party line - but at a time when there is only a small majority, Tories are being whipped until they quit and Labour, well just Corbyn.

The whole brexit situation is the perfect divide and conquer breeding ground for elites to exploit.

See it for what it is - and what it is not - and direct and channel frustration accordingly.

This case really has saved a lot of future trouble, btw. Can we imagine what could have happened if we found out in April 2018 that May had no powers to trigger Article 50 & the whole thing was then void & had to start over? That really would be failed piss-up in the brewery. You're probably right. words not often written on MN

Probably. At heart I'm angry that our government do not know what they are doing and could not run a piss up in brewery. Ordinary people's lives are being determined by people like Gove, Cameron, High Court judges etc. The elite in other words. I'm off to campaign for Trump not really

All of which I absolutely understand and sympathise with derxa. Many people feel as you do. I just don't think being upset about what was, let us face it, an absolute dead cert of a legal decision is the ideal way to challenge it. If we're upset about the uselessness of our government, which huge numbers of us are, kicking out at the people who are there to act as checks on them is counterproductive.

Looking at the reaction of many of those on the Leave side to this decision puts me in mind of the scene near the end of The Wizard of Oz when the curtain is pulled back.

Utterly revealing that for all the talk about sovereignty it doesn't seem to have been about that at all, at least for many who have used it as cover for their real reasons.

I'm in favour of both Brexit and our democracy. In my opinion the referendum legally needs to be ratified by parliament to proceed and MP's should reflect the popular vote in their constituencies or be held to account.

What I find hypocritical is Remain quoting the overall voting figures for and against Brexit. This has no bearing on our democratic system given the numbers of seats in parliament have rarely closely reflected overall voting results.

As receny as 2011 the UK overwhelminging rejected proportional representation...ironically in a referendum

Unfortunately the referendum was counted using the EU voting areas, rather than UK parliamentary constituencies which makes comparisons difficult. Out of the 362 voting areas, only 113 voted to remain which is less than 30% in favour of remain.

Figures have since been adjusted to try to get a feel for the parliamentary constituency results which Remainers will be pleased to know skews results more towards Remain than the EU voting areas do. Of the 650 UK parliamentary constituencies, 39% voted to remain. Still a landslide in our democratic system...IF and only if those we elected to represent us actually follow the majority opinion of their constituents.

As receny as 2011 the UK overwhelminging rejected proportional representation...ironically in a referendum

There was not a referendum on proportional representation. This was blocked. Instead it was a stupid vote on AV which is very different.

Of the 650 UK parliamentary constituencies, 39% voted to remain.

Can you tell us where you got this info? As I understood it, the majority of constituencies hadn't been counted by themselves so it's only an estimate at best.

Hyacinth it may be an estimate, but the reality is that it is highly likely that a majority of constituencies were leave-voting, just because of the way the remain vote was heavily concentrated in certain geographical areas in a way that the leave vote by and large wasnt.

This whole Brexit malarkey is now just two very angry sides shouting at each other and refusing to make concessions at all. Neither side can accept the other might have any merit at all so we have stalemate.

If we got another vote, I wouldn't bother (I voted remain). All we have managed is to split the country.

The Remain vote was also mostly concentrated in areas where there are a lot of constituencies mistigri. I'm not suggesting the 39% figure is necessarily wrong, I'd just like to know how it was come up with. And also how an individual MP could identify what their own constituents voted if they're not in a constituency that was also a district for the referendum. I'm not being snarky, I would like to know. I reckon there are quite a lot of MPs who would too!

Figures have since been adjusted to try to get a feel for the parliamentary constituency results

As I said in my post, yes it's an estimate, but one that favoured Remain a little more than using the actual EU voting results so I thought I'd include it for balance...all be it the difference is nowhere near enough to get close to the overall result Remainers like to quote when forgetting we don't have a proportional representation system of democracy.

Votes for Remain were limited to very small geographical areas of the U.K. Which is why the overall result is being within 2% is very different to one based on voting areas as our democratic is, whether that be the actual results based on EU voting areas, or an estimate to reflect the 650 parliamentary constituencies.

The estimates quoted were from this source but to be fair, their maths could be way out and even a cursory glance at the 113 EU voting area percentages will tell you that any estimates to adjust for the differences between EU voting areas and UK constituencies will show that the overall result is irrelevant if MP's vote to reflect the majority view of their constituents. IF...

uk.businessinsider.com/nomura-2-charts-show-why-remain-mps-wont-oppose-brexit-2016-10

Excellent post btw hyacinth

I think the thing that stands out to me is that no matter how wrong the maths is, there's such a massive margin of error that a parliamentary vote on Brexit will be more of a landslide, but only if MP's vote to reflect the majority off their constituents which I'd hope they would in a democratic system.

Not hard to find counts & a map of which way different areas voted. It's about 1/3 Remain & 2/3 Leave.

The link in the article you've given us doesn't take me to the UEA research. Am I doing something wrong?