To think this could mean the end of brexit?

[jdoe8]

Now MPs will be able to block it. Could this be the end of this ridiculous brexit? MPs can not vote for something that they think will not be in peoples interest and its very clear the people that voted to brexit would be the ones worse off.

JO'B is doing a fab job on LBC today and most brexiters seem to be happy that it might not go ahead as they were fooled by lies!

Many (most?) of the people able to vote in 1974 are dead
Cut out the (most?) - many of us are very much alive and can reasonably anticipate being around for another 20 - 30 years.

As you say, had the political will been there, we could have left years ago. It's only a minority who wanted to leave, another minority were full on for wanting to integrate more, and the vast majority IMO neither knew nor cared because it didn't really affect their day to day lives much.

topsy It wasn't "my model" but thanks for the strawman. This part of the discussion came about because you named Clarke and Clegg as 2 MPs who had apparently said they would vote against, and that you would not countenance even 2 out of 650 MPs voting against. That's when I pointed out that even if every MP from a Remain constituency voted against (and on that basis rather than using their judgement which is how MPs ought to work if not whipped), your glorious future would still win. Then we ended up descending into a hypothetical extrapolated farce in which you tried to get me to say that I would want silence from Leavers in parliament if the referendum had gone the other way and so on and so on.

The bottom line is that you do not want the 48% to have a voice in parliament. Don't be so shy about it, you're a winner, remember?

It's only a minority who wanted to leave, another minority were full on for wanting to integrate more, and the vast majority IMO neither knew nor cared because it didn't really affect their day to day lives much.

I wonder how true that is, when people have been constantly dripped "Blame the EU" stories for 40 years not just by the media but by successive governments as a convenient scapegoat for their own failings.

That's why threats of blood being spilled are genuinely worrying - I fear there is no way there won't be more bloodshed whatever happens now.

I wonder how true that is, when people have been constantly dripped "Blame the EU" stories for 40 years not just by the media but by successive governments as a convenient scapegoat for their own failings.

I perhaps could qualify this - the sort of thing my late DM would say if prices went up - "it's that Common Market's fault". Nor, by the same token, when she went to a beach which used to be polluted by sewage but was now clean, did she say, 'this is thanks to the EU'.

But on a day to day basis, she didn't think much about it, or it was Maggie Thatcher's fault, or Tony Blair's - both more likely to be true. I think she was typical of many.

The court decision was nothing to do with the referendum or brexit. It was simply based on whether royal prerogative powers could/should be allowed to override statute (the statute that originally brought us into the EU).

Appealing is a waste of time and money because it is very clearly unconstitutional for prerogative powers to override statute.

The decision is a purely legal one about constitutional law. It offers no political comment on brexit.

And TBH my view on the whining is that you can't complain about being in the EU meaning we lack parliamentary sovereignty (when we are in because of statute) and then expect to come out via royal prerogative... Makes zero sense.

Also very very worrying that any government would try to circumvent a very clear constitutional point such as this by attempting to use RP and needing to be stopped by the court. Again is worrying that they would appeal.

Of course they understand the constitutional issues, IMO this has all been an exercise in trying to whip up some of the people who are regretting voting to leave into a furore again. Cynical political exploitation and deliberate exercise in trying to turn public opinion against the judiciary.

merrymouse

Nothing scary about it. It is just that of bad loser. The referendum act delegated the decision to a UK wide referendum and then certain MPs refused to move on, i.e. accept the result and subject to that, do the best for their constituencies.

As I said above, as long as A50 is not blocked, I could not really care if it is passed by 60% or 100% - makes no different.

Peregina - keep that in context please. It was a respond to TES who thinks that MP should act for their constituents regardless of UK wide decision on international treaties.

TES
Hypothetical extrapolated farce - that was why I suggested we should have leave it there a few posts up. But yes, I think we should just leave it here.

Appealing is a waste of time and money because it is very clearly unconstitutional for prerogative powers to override statute.

I think the point of appealing would be to avoid the charge that the government were involved in some kind of remainer's conspiracy. After all, May was theoretically pro remain.

Logically, this judgement is just about how parliament is supposed to function. However, logic doesn't seem to be a priority for the Express, the Mail, and the Telegraph.

TES who thinks that MP should act for their constituents regardless of UK wide decision on international treaties.

As I did not say that but was responding to your hypothetical train of argument in which no MP should give voice to the 48%, kindly retract.

That's not true though topsy.

They could have made the referendum binding but they chose to make it advisory.

As such it is not a given that the result will be followed by parliament. Creating a load of uncertainty and frustration but equally if remain had won the referendum the position would have been the same - the referendum was advisory.

Constitutionally the government cannot use prerogative powers to override the statute that brought us into the EU (after the last referendum). A new statute is required which means it must go through parliament. Again, if remain won parliament would have been able to decide to come out.

The whole thing is an ill thought out mess IMO. Lots of uncertainty and lots of bad feeling.

Minority representation is for bad losers???????

Are you vaguely aware that in the UK we have a parliament and that the make up of that parliament changes at most every 5 years and that some times one party has more MPs and sometimes another?

The referendum did not delegate the decision. It sought the opinion of the British people on a particular date in history. However, the U.K. is governed through parliament. The people are free to change their minds, choose different politicians and campaign for whatever causes they believe in.

That is why we are no longer

Oops. That is why we are no longer governed by the Whigs - I mean who are these stupid losers complaining that they shouldn't be in power - surely the matter was settled in 1714?

Minority representation is for bad losers???????

It's a charming view, isn't it?

I think the point of appealing would be to avoid the charge that the government were involved in some kind of remainer's conspiracy. After all, May was theoretically pro remain.

This would be (is) a massive misuse of the courts though for political purposes...

Having a voice is one thing - which they are perfectly entitled to, continue to dwell on a decision that has been made is other.

The arguments are going no where because the two are being conflated.

The MPs are perfectly entitled to say that they think leaving EU is the wrong thing to do, but a decision has been made, so move on rather than wanting to vote against it to make a point. A50 is the natural step of the decision and it is procedural. Voting against it is just saying we are not accepting the ref result and will keep fighting it (hopefulness or otherwise).

"TES who thinks that MP should act for their constituents regardless of UK wide decision on international treaties.

As I did not say that but was responding to your hypothetical train of argument in which no MP should give voice to the 48%, kindly retract."

That was how I interpreted but I accept your clarification. That is retracted.

Offred

The Referendum Act did not say whether it was advisory or binding. It just says the people decides and some refuse-to-give up remainers interpreted that as 'advisory'.

Thank you for the retraction topsy

I quite agree the prerogative power should not be used (although it was used to sign up to previous treaties effectively). It has to go through the parliament and I have stated many times I don't have issue with that.

It is only when the parliament or HoL attempt to block A50 then we have an issue.

merrymouse

"The referendum did not delegate the decision."

That is your interpretation. Wish the Act states that in clear languages but we are where we are. I disagree with your interpretation.

TES

Sorry for the misunderstanding

No, what you are missing re advisory/binding is that the referendum act DIDN'T state the result was binding. That is why it was not binding.

And it is nothing to do with remainders/leavers. If remain had won the referendum would still not be binding, leaving could still go through parliament (as it could have done at any time since statute brought us in after the last referendum).

The fact is we are in by statute, referendum or not referendum, referendum saying leave or referendum saying stay, ultimately we are in through parliament (statute) and coming out at any time referendum or not has to go through parliament.

Part of the problem is people thinking the referendum (irrespective of the result) means that is it we are done now it is decided and finished.

It was a parliamentary decision to go in, it is and always has been a parliamentary decision to come out, and TBF one that could have been made at any time referendum or not.

Because you know parliamentary sovereignty, over prerogative powers and over the referendum result and, what ppl often forget, over being in the EU!

Point me to the sentence that says the referendum was advisory:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

You can also try to read transcript of Hansard (which I am not bothered) to see it was meant to be advisory.

The flip side of your comment is since the legislation did not say it was advisory and given the magnitude of it, must be binding. What is the point of spending £100m on a referendum if was 'advisory'?

Parliament and A50 is merely procedural (which should be followed) in my book.

I know what your point is topsy. It is not legally correct. For a referendum to be binding it would need to be explicitly stated that it was because it is a huge constitutional issue. Parliament is sovereign and for parliament to not be assumed to be sovereign on this issue it would clearly have to legislate (thereby satisfying sovereignty)

So they legislated for the referendum and they did not legislate for the referendum to be binding.

It is unequivocally clear therefore that the result is advisory and not binding because you cannot read into the statute that parliament intended to make the people sovereign over parliament.

And think about it logically. If anybody even considered that the referendum act had the consequence of making the referendum result binding you have parliamentary authority to trigger article 50 right there. There is no need to try and use prerogative powers or have further debates in parliament or pass further legislation allowing the triggering of article 50 because the referendum act would be the parliamentary authority to trigger article 50 already.