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 am a Remainer but I hardly think it likely that MPs will vote Brexit down (and indeed much as I don't want to Leave, I can see that if they did so that would bring with it a whole host of other problems).

That said I am glad at least that Parliament gets to trigger A50 and that the govt can't just go off on a jolly of its own on this. Of course the judgment doesn't help us predict how this will all happen in practice. How much information will the govt have to give Parliament before it votes to trigger? The judgment doesn't prescribe any of that, but I guess it is in the govt's interests (given they have foolishly already promised to trigger in March 17, which I thought was rash given how rubbish their arguments were on the A50 case!) to be as forthcoming as possible to maximise the chance of Parliament approving the trigger within the govt's timetable.

Note that as far as I can see this judgment does not give parliament a seat at the table in negotiating with the EU/world around (1) the two year divorce process or (2) trade deals going forward from Brexit, or the right to approve any of these things.

If the govt loses again in the Supreme Court, will they appeal to the European Court - what an ironic twist that would be (and political dynamite, particularly if the govt loses there too).

Actually, this is the proper discussion right here. Remainers with facts (sovereignty, democracy, Parliament) and in-depth knowledge of the constitution on their side; Leavers without a clue how to argue against it.

And WTF is up with Boris?

Boris "We are going to make a Titanic success of Brexit"

George Osborne: "It sank."

Which will prove to be a pretty accurate analogy to "Brexit" I'm sure. It all starts with Nigel Farage & co flag-waving, and ends with the economy tanking, job losses, price rises....

I wonder if it's a free vote? Can May instruct her MPs how to vote? Does anyone know?

Either way this is going to be very very difficult, and will simply delay the process,

To be honest, I'm not sure we can ever come out, there is a change to the eu process for leaving early next year, where all members have to agree and if May doesn't trigger before that, then it's game over.

I am a Remainer but I hardly think it likely that MPs will vote Brexit down (and indeed much as I don't want to Leave, I can see that if they did so that would bring with it a whole host of other problems).

That said I am glad at least that Parliament gets to trigger A50 and that the govt can't just go off on a jolly of its own on this. Of course the judgment doesn't help us predict how this will all happen in practice. How much information will the govt have to give Parliament before it votes to trigger? The judgment doesn't prescribe any of that, but I guess it is in the govt's interests (given they have foolishly already promised to trigger in March 17, which I thought was rash given how rubbish their arguments were on the A50 case!) to be as forthcoming as possible to maximise the chance of Parliament approving the trigger within the govt's timetable.

Note that as far as I can see this judgment does not give parliament a seat at the table in negotiating with the EU/world around (1) the two year divorce process or (2) trade deals going forward from Brexit, or the right to approve any of these things.

If the govt loses again in the Supreme Court, will they appeal to the European Court - what an ironic twist that would be (and political dynamite, particularly if the govt loses there too).

as expected the goady posters are out in force and I expect this thread to get very nasty in a short space of time.
Waste of time asking the people in the referendum then wasn't it?
Yes it would be easy to see which constituencies voted to Leave and therefore which MPs should represent their wishes.
It is shameful IMO that the rich and powerful are trying to subvert the wishes of the majority of the electorate and not at all democratic - for once I feel ashamed of this country and the 48%.

as expected the goady posters are out in force and I expect this thread to get very nasty in a short space of time.

I agree. and I voted remain

the woodlander
you do realise titanic had a dictionary meaning before the ship was so named!

Bumpsadaisie

Which European court?

The European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) does not hear appeals from Governments and this is in any case not an HRA case.

The European Court of Justice (Luxembourg) only hears cases on reference on questions of EU law from courts in Member States and I see nothing which could lead the Supreme Court to refer it.

Malice - riot in the street? How fucking irresponsible.

I will riot in the streets if necessary - as should all democrats.

What, even parliamentary ones? Of the Burkean flavour?

Yes it would be easy to see which constituencies voted to Leave and therefore which MPs should represent their wishes.

How, exactly? What about MPs who live in areas where only the vote for the wider district was recorded and not that for constituencies specifically? I'll give you a more Brexity example as you might respond better to that. I live in Manchester, which recorded a significant Remain victory (not that you'd know considering the story in the press was all about how the north was Leave). But I reckon there's one constituency where people probably were Leave. That was never officially recorded or counted, though. So in the absence of any data other than the overwhelming Remain vote for the whole city, what are the MPs to do?

mollie

Of course the referendum was a waste of time. The British public knows very little about the institutions of the EU, or constitutional matters, or the Westminster model. How were they meant to make an informed decision about leaving the EU?

The Referendum happened because Cameron wanted to silence the right wing of his party. No-one should be kidding themselves that any high-profile Leavers give a shit about the British public; Boris has been proven to have been posturing.

This is excellent news for the UK. I hope now Parliament can do its job and save us from sinking into the abyss.

I'm not sure I understand and I don't pretend to either.

We (as a country) voted to leave. That's democracy isn't it? If MPs vote against it there'll be rioting in the streets! If they vote for it then we just get back on with it?

Full judgment at www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf Read para 84.

Remainers taking back control... laughing as I type. A happy day for some of us although it is a small skirmish in what will be a long war

Lottie No how absolutely bloody responsible. With bells on!!!!

This IS parliamentary sovereignty.
I'm ever so slightly more hopeful.

"Yes it would be easy to see which constituencies voted to Leave and therefore which MPs should represent their wishes. " - but the point of the article I linked to earlier is that it actually isn't very easy to see how constituencies voted. Voting was reported by Local Authority area, and there are only 26 constituencies with an exact shared boundary with an LA. Otherwise there are overlaps between constituencies and LAs and marked differences within the demographics of those. The article makes an informed guess, but it was based on a lot of assumptions.

"The European Court of Justice (Luxembourg) only hears cases on reference on questions of EU law from courts in Member States and I see nothing which could lead the Supreme Court to refer it."

What about the key issue of whether Article 50 is irrevocable? I can absolutely see a referral if the government appeals.

Malice what are you going to riot against? Parliamentary sovereignty?

I suggest that anyone who is unclear on how our parliamentary democracy is set up to function should read the decision itself. Me2017 has provided the link, above.
To advocate rioting in the streets in response to the appropriate workings of government is ... well ... we have an example of that kind of thinking across the Atlantic right now in Donald Trump.

We (as a country) voted to leave. That's democracy isn't it?

Ok, so basically a majority of votes cast were Leave, yes. But nobody voted for any particular procedure as to how we do it. Whether Parliament should vote, whether the PM should just be able to declare it without any scrutiny, whether there should be a timetable and if so what that should be. The way in which we might Leave wasn't on the ballot and for whatever reason, nobody within the Leave camp came up with a process or solution in advance. That means we've been left in a muddle over how to do it. All we knew was that we do it by triggering Article 50, but nobody actually worked out how this was going to happen.

May then decided that the executive could just trigger Article 50 whenever they felt like it, without any reference to Parliament. Some people disagreed. The court ruling today says the disagreeing people were right. It isn't undemocratic, because nobody voted for Parliament not to have a say on Article 50. There are people who want the UK to leave the EU who are pleased about this because they want it all to be done legally and properly. This doesn't mean Parliament can't vote to trigger Article 50 either.

This judgement states that parliament should be allowed to vote on the enacting of Article 50. That is all. It is surely a discussion as to wither or not they enact the will of the people that was voiced in the referendum. I don't think it has anything to do with deciding how the government negotiates our leaving the EU or dictating what sort of Brexit we get. That will be up to the government surely. It is simply a vote on stay or leave end of.

I do wonder if those wishing to remain would be so enamoured of parliamentary democracy had the vote been to remain, but that a majority of MPs had been in favour of leaving?

I also think that those that are hopeful of decision being reversed do not fully appreciate the damage that would be done to the EU were the UK to remain.

Despite everything......interesting times.

James O'Brien on LBC was on fire again - here he explains what parliamentary sovereignty is and how a law cannot be changed without an Act of Parliament.

It's a tiny ray of hope, not an unexpected one, but the news has brightened my morning.