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

Well 3 cheers for the successfull return of the ruling class. For a minute there we nearly lost those zero hours contracts, we nearly lost the suppression of lower class wages due to the successfull constant flooding of tha labour market of unskilled but desperate workers, which of course has made thousands and thousands very very rich. (For example, my husband 30 years ago was earning between £20 and £30 an hour as a hgv driver, today hes earning £10). We nearly managed to put a stop to the slum landlords that we have seen such a huge increase in in the last decade. As to Germanys position, well you can only but watch as the impact of refusing the people a voice continues to take hold. France has never been closer to an extreme right wing government as they are today over their refusal to listen to the people, and I will go as far to say, that this action today, here in the UK, will guarantee a Donald Trump Victory in the US. No one likes Trump, hes an awful man, but they hate exactly what has been demonstrated here today, even more.

It was clear, we implemented our right to ask the people of this nation to decide. If remain had won, there would be no question of any challenge to that authority, and our right to referenda (to satisfy your grammar snobbery) would remain intact. (Ensuring Scotlands legitimate right to decide?) You have put democracy back 100 years by undermining and overiding its existance. Congratulations, and I reiterate, shame on the lot of you.

I'd be happy to never have another referendum, this one was an absolute farce. It should never have happened in the first place.

My dh is a bit of a conspiracy theorist and said this was all planned way back when we voted leave, he said for whatever reason it wouldn't happen.
I usually rib him for his views, maybe he has a point.

Well 3 cheers for the successfull return of the ruling class.

Pretty please tell me you didn't think that instituting constitional change via THE ROYAL BLEEDING PREROGATIVE was anything other than the absolute primacy of the ruling class? I mean, leaving aside for a minute the rest of that fairly bizarre diatribe, but that struck me as particularly inaccurate even in the context of a post that appears to be suggesting the right wing turds your Leave vote empowered were somehow going to allow us to get rid of zero hour contracts.

We hvae to wait for the Supreme Court as the Government is highly likely to appeal. We will know by the end of the year.

Few people who are pro or anti Brexit are against having laws and following them and having rights to go to court. It is a useful check and balance on Governments and useful for both sides.

People are going to take to the streets if the law of the land (THIS land, too, which apparently was very important to Brexiters until it was pointed out to them that the laws of this country mean our MPs have to have a bloody say on what happens now) is adhered to and that results in parliament voting against invoking article 50? Really? Why has it come as such a surprise to so many people that the referendum was advisory, not binding? Didn't people actually look into this whole thing- especially if it meant so much to them that they are now contemplating street riots?

I am a remainer. I don't for a moment believe that parliament will actually vote not to invoke article 50, although I dearly wish they would. But I am very, very glad they will have a chance to properly debate and to vote.

The Our Britain page on FB (check it out, it's a gem) is in meltdown. One gentleman just asked the following question:

'Why did they go to court when no law was broken?'

This is why Brexit happened. No-one has a clue how our Parliamentary democracy works, not even the foggiest.

chris may i ask why you think That asking parliament to vote on the art 50 means that Brexit will not happen? Is it because you because you believe most MP are against it and you don't believe you then have a strong position re brexit?
Or why a ruling which is about ensuring the sovereignty of parliament (the basis of the British democracy after all) is NOT s good idea and should NOT be celebrated? Surely if you celebrate the result of the referendum as being the direct result of a democratic process, you would also want to be sure that said democratic process is followed in the way the result is used and applied? And that means that it's the Parliament who
Should decide the way forward. Because that how the British democracy works. And if it works well, MPs votes should reflect the way the population vote.

I personally don't think that MPs will vote against art 50. I do want to see them involve in HOW art 50 will be implemented. Because the referendum, the voice of the people, only said they wanted to be out if the EU. It didn't say how or how much.

That's what I thought hummus. Surely if you really, truly want Brexit you'd be in support of having every single box ticked, t crossed and i dotted. The last thing you'd want is something not watertight, if you'd any sense at all.

And pacificdogwood, I think the time for doing ourselves favours in the eyes of onlookers has been and gone, tbh. Although the pound did surge right after the ruling, so there's that.

Hummus - I totally agree. As my username indicates, I voted leave. I voted leave because of the democratic hole at the centre of Europe that is the European commission (and I used to work in Brussels, so I do know how it works, and I also know that other European countries have raised worries about this, most notably in the German parliament recently). I'm also old enough to have despaired of any chance of reforming the commission.

But I certainly don't have any issue with immigration, or free trade - nor (if Ashcroft's poll the day after the referendum was to be believed) do a lot of other leave voters - about half listed "sovereignty" as their primary reason for voting leave, only 1/3 listed "immigration" as their top reason. (Now I'm sure a large fraction didn't have a clue what sovereignty means - but I'm pretty sure a large fraction of remain voters couldn't tell you what the main parts of the European decision making system are either... there's ignorance on both sides).

And I really do want the decision to invoke article 50 subject to as much parliamentary scrutiny as possible. May and Rudd seem to have gone off on a crazed "pander to the bleakest possible set of interpretations of what the lowest common denominator of the British electorate might want from Brexit" crusade if the Tory party conference was any indication. They're whipping up a level of xenophobia and racism that is frankly horrifying. And their view of how to conduct negotiations seems to be based round finding the strategy most likely to leave us stranded in the economic wilderness for decades to come, and they seem ideologically wedded to this strategy. So I want parliament to scrutinise their proposals and come up with the best way forward. This isn't the same as reversing the referendum result. This is to do with ensuring that decisions are made properly and rationally.

I also want parliament to scrutinise things because the whole bloody reason I voted the way I did is that I want democratic accountability, not decisions taken in back rooms far away from the scrutiny of parliament, whether that's the MEPs in Brussels or our own parliament here.

No "right wing turds" were empowered hyacinth. No one gained a seat in parliament from the referendum, and indeed even Farage wasnt stupid enough to believe a vote for Brexit was a vote for him, hence his resignation. (Unlike the utterly deluded Sturgeon).

Zero hour contracts exist because they can. Thats all there is to it. When you have an endless stream of available low skilled labour, prepared to live 12 to a house and work for minimum wage or less, you hand over maximised profit at the cost of infinately depressed wages. (And dont lecture me that those highly profitable businesses are supporting, via tax, the welfare system.....theyre not.) Of course these contracts would cease to exist, if employers had to struggle with the issue of staff retention.

But hey ho, a successful day for the comfortable work house supporters, indeed.

Some Leavers seem to comprehend what is happening right now (the playing out of the democratic legal process) about as well as they understood the issues at stake in the referendum in the first place. I think the Brexiteers-in-charge misled you about many things, including the nature of the referendum.
Today's High Court decision has nothing to do with the ruling class; it is about allowing your duly elected representatives to do their jobs. These are the same people you said you wanted to solely determine your future when you voted to leave the EU.
Once again, I would encourage anyone who is truly interested and who truly wants to understand why this is important to read today's ruling, which is written in very plain language. Parliament's role in the process is vital.

Hummus, how MPs now vote is a moot point. What has happened today is that the authority given to a referendum, that is the peoples right to decide (as requested by parliament dont forget), has been negated. Thats it. The deliberation whether individual MPs will now vote with their wallets or their constituents is irrelevant. Its the fact they now have been given the power to vote against their constituents, if they so wish. Because.....we're all too stupid you see.

we nearly lost those zero hours contracts: once again, zero hours contracts are banned in most EU countries, and actually EU has recently had a review in order to ban them completely. The European leader in zero hour contracts is the UK. This helps to explain the disparity between unemployment figures when compared to other EU countries, as people with zero hour contracts count as being employed.

No "right wing turds" were empowered hyacinth.

False. The right wing turd of the Tory party has been empowered. Notice they're the ones in positions of power now. That would not have happened had Remain carried the day. There are more right wing turds in British politics than Farage. As for the rest, your argument about zero hour contracts seems to rest on the rather speculative idea that leaving would actually bring about a reduction in immigration, and that this will now not happen because our actual, literal rulers are going to have to do the necessary with some reference to our elected representatives.

What has happened today is that the authority given to a referendum, that is the peoples right to decide (as requested by parliament dont forget), has been negated.

No. This could only be true if the referendum had been given such authority, and it wasn't. Once again, not one single person voted for the UK to leave the EU via Royal Prerogative, bypassing parliamentary democracy. You appear to think you did, but if so you're wrong. That was not one of the questions on the ballot paper, even if we set aside the purely advisory nature of the vote and presume there is an obligation to honour it.

Thank you Hyacinth for explaining this (the nature and limits of the referendum) so clearly. I don't understand how people don't understand this - except that they were deliberately misled in some cases.

chris there has NEVER beennany authority given to a referendum. It has anways been advisory.
Of course everyone has always said they will do what people ask. But legally they don't have to and never had.
That hasnt changed TBH and isnt an attack from one side to the other. Regardless of the result, the referendum never meant that said result HAD to happen.

For me, it is essential that going out of the EU us made following the rules of the British democracy. If it means MP voting for it, why not? It doesnt mean that the MP will vote against going ahead with Brexit. It means we will follow the rules of one if the longest democracy in the world. it should be a good thing surely?

Does anyone think this is going to trigger a General Election in May ? Does anyone tbelieve that the MPs will get to vote with their conscience in the debate?

It's definitely a game changer. Although it does slightly leave us in a precarious position - - firstly because a, the referendum was fairly decided using the democratic process and had a clear definite result whether we like it or not (and democracy is not a case of replaying best of three until the result we like comes out) b, the EU has all ready made it plain that they were unhappy with the result; that they have had, since the referendum, left the UK out of EU meetings. Surely, this is not going to end well either way? MPs should reflect the will of the people, they are the voice and the advocates - it was obvious that May was not going to get to have the final say, but then you don't have to be a lawyer to be PM, nor have any qualifications barr the £500 'running fee' to be an MP then the backing of the party. I do think that to remain, now, would leave the UK in an untenable position both by being the laughing stock of the EU area and by neglecting to follow a democratic process to the end.

Those remainers celebrating today, need to think very carefully that in succeeding with this prevaracation over a decision you dont personaly like, will impact our nations abiliy to ever have an further referendums over the next few centuries. Ruining our grandchildrens futures? You have just done so. You have succeeded in claiming the electorate are too stupid to understand such matters of politics

Apart from the big about our grandchildren's futures, I'm tempted to say that never has a brexiter spoke a truer word. Let's hope that this will be the end of referendums, at least on complex subjects that are not amenable to simple yes-no answers. The electorate may or may not be too stupid, but what this whole sorry affair has shown is that they are mostly not educated enough. Many don't even understand basic principles of parliamentary democracy.

Parliament could have made this referendum binding, but it didn't.

The ruling would be better interpreted as part of an ongoing power struggle between parliament and the executive than a direct criticism of the referendum. In that sense I am very glad to see it. It might signal a return of parliament and the beginning of a return to democracy.

Chris, talking about a 'return of the ruling class' - what do you think an autocratic government refusing to discuss the detail of the biggest constitutional change we will ever see is??

The actual issue of Brexit is just a complete nightmare and we will be damned lucky if we don't get riots and clashes in the streets over it. Bloody Cameron, Farage and Johnson should all be shot for treason in my book, for pursuing petty party political issues at the huge expense of the British nation and people, for all the lies and ongoing ignored domestic issues that brought us to this place.

Referendums are not and never will be legally binding. That is the nature of a referendum. I think that the solution would be to enact the Art.50 under the Lisbon Treaty and to fully scrutinise it beforehand. Suggesting, as has been, that the electorate is ill educated and unable to grasp the concept of political ideologies denigrates the political process. By that logic, surely the populous should have no part in choosing the next parliament - - because that is an important decision too, isn't it? Or maybe only those with a University education, or two heads, or live in the South East, or only the North West because only they will understand the concepts involved fully and therefore only they should have the vote. The referendum has served to highlight huge areas of disenfranchisement, huge areas neglected by those who were chosen to represent them - those very same representatives who live on an income of at least £74k (pre tax) and serve limited self interests. The referendum was a moment in history - - much like the original EEA referendum (when Scotland voted overwhelmingly not to join) - - when the voice of the people was heard directly. It may not have been the will of all the people, but it was a result that should be respected for that very fact.

One of the issues is people not understanding how our democracy works. The idea that democracy is one thing and that there are no checks and balances. It is the rule of law that ensures democracy.

Also the UK is a representative democracy. We elect individuals to be MPs not political partys, which is why they can cross the floor and still represent their constituents. If an MP chooses not to follow the exact views of their constituents that is acceptable practice.