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!

So yes, theoretically, the fact that the result is advisory not binding in a legal sense means that it could result in us not triggering article 50.

I would say that is incredibly unlikely because this is not just about the law, it is about politics and sentiment and egos and the diabolical mess that parliament made in deciding to have the referendum thinking we would vote to stay and drafting the referendum act etc.

Parliament I believe will give weight to the referendum result and they will scrutinise and decide on the proper way to leave.

The whole thing though has been a shambles from start to finish whether you are a leaver or a remainder. Really, really poor and the uncertainty over it all and the maneuvring in the courts etc is shameful IMO.

I was a remainer and I was opposed to the idea of even having the referendum in the first place (for all sorts of reasons not least this stuff about sovereignty etc) BTW. The thing is we voted to leave and I accept that. I think it is right that we now leave (even though it is not what I would like), I think it is right that parliament scrutinises and decides how we leave, I think it would be wrong for MPs to scupper it (even though that is the outcome I personally would favour).

In short I think this is the bed parliament (and the government) have made and everyone has to make the best of it.

Going against the referendum result would not have desirably consequences. We can never go back now to being partners in the EU even if parliament exercised a legal right to override the referendum decision.

What is required now is for everyone to be responsible adults and make the best of reality.

"make the people sovereign over parliament."

I disagree with your interpretation. Of course the people are sovereign over parliament. They are representatives aren't they? We are no longer being ruled by the Lords and Barron.

Legally, in such constitutional issues, are subject to interpretations.

"So yes, theoretically,....."

Generally agree with what you said. It was a mess.

the people are sovereign over parliament?! No, "the people" are not, because the whole point of a parliamentary democracy is to have accountability and prevent mob-rule.

Not in any legal sense because if you look back over our constitutional history 'the people' ARE parliament.

The issue is essentially parliament (the people) v the crown (absolute monarchy). What we do not have is a constitution which places emphasis on referenda on major decisions (some places do have that type of system). Referenda are at the discretion of parliament and are subject to parliamentary authority.

The way our system works is how it has worked in this case - legislation for a referendum giving

*giving all the people eligible the right to vote on this issue.

But at the discretion of parliament and in a manner described by parliament in legislation created by parliament.

So in short in this country a referendum simply doesn't equate to the people deciding and there is no more to discuss.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk
Britain is a representative democracy. This is where citizens within a country elect representatives to make decisions for them. Every 5 years in Britain the people have the chance to vote into power those they wish to represent us in Parliament
And the referendum was advisory. Art 50 will be triggered only for fears of the mob.

Offred

Interpretation of unwritten constituitions changes with time. The people ultimately are the mobs. I disagree with your position and there is nothing more to discuss

Will see if Parliament dares block A50.

Court also has a concept called 'intension of the parliament' which involves going through Hansard to see what was the intension at the time.

Of course since you do not think they will block a50, these are all academic.

intention not intension.

Interpretation of unwritten constituitions changes with time, yes but those changes are also decided by parliament. Can you give details of the parliamentary act that changed UK's constitution and transformed the UK from a representative democracy to something else?

I know that on very rare occasions they will go through Hansard to look at what was discussed. That is contentious and is reserved for where the legislation lacks clarity.

This is not an example of that TBF and certainly no court would read into legislation that a referendum was binding without it being clearly stated in the legislation.

There are rules concerning construction.

We do not have a written constiturion but it is equally true that our constitution is not 'unwritten' either. The British constitution is formulated by a number of written documents and some unwritten conventions which have been developed over time. It is not contained in one constitutional document.

No court would make a judgement which had implications for parliamentary sovereignty such as you are implying.

In any case the issue in the recent court case was not to do with whether the referendum act created a binding result. It was given that it was binding, could the government use royal prerogative to trigger article 50. The court (obviously) decided that it couldn't because of parliamentary sovereignty.

*wasnt binding!

Think about it - why would the government need to use prerogative powers to trigger article 50 if the referendum act had already given parliamentary authority for it to do so?

Voting against it is just saying we are not accepting the ref result and will keep fighting it (hopefulness or otherwise).

No, it would be disagreeing with leaving the EU. It is not possible to argue with the result of the referendum. The result is fact. It is still perfectly possible to argue that leaving the EU is a bad idea. If that were not possible we would be living in a dictatorship that did not allow freedom of speech.

The reason that a majority of MPs will support leaving the EU is that it would be political suicide not to do so. If a majority of MPs had constituencies backing staying in the EU, they might try to block leaving, but in a situation where the popular vote were at odds with parliamentary representation, leaving the EU would look very uncertain anyway - it is likely that the vote would have to be clarified further e.g. by general election.

After each general election, the opposition loses but can vote against government policies with which it disagrees. They don't lose their voice, just the ability to pass legislation and form a government.

Had remain won, it is perfectly possible that the UK would have left the EU in the next decade, just as the Scottish referendum does not mean that Scotland must stay part of the U.K. for eternity.

It would be harder to re-enter the EU having left, but people are at liberty to continue campaigning for it and political parties are free to represent them.

The people ultimately are the mobs. I disagree with your position and there is nothing more to discuss

If 'the people' feel that the result of the referendum is so fragile that it can't survive parliament, it's debatable whether all 'the people' have reached a conclusive opinion.

The dispute is about who has the power to trigger A50, not about whether the referendum was binding or advisory. As far as I'm aware, the government hasn't even tried to argue that the referendum is legally binding.

It is accepted that the court cannot compel the parliament to do something.

Another way of looking at this is that the referendum is as binding as the EU treaty. If the parliament decides to pass a legislation explicitly restricting FoM and amending ECA 1972, that court cannot bind the parliament and that restriction will be enforced.

We know that the parliament was strongly pro-remain. If the referendum was merely to affirm their positions (i.e. accept if remain, ignore if leave), then the word Banana comes to mind where presidents held elections so that they can be 99% 'approved'.

The High Court argument was that EC1972 came from the parliament so procedurally parliament needs to trigger A50. The judges said nothing (though the question wasn't asked) that the parliament should treat the referendum as 'advisory'.

The ultimately question is whether UK is ruled by the people or by a group of MPs. Another concept is called consent, MP may make decisions on behalf of the people when they are consented to do so. When they are told otherwise, they should act as instructed.

No, the reason they said nothing about whether the result was binding or advisory is because literally nobody thinks it was binding because that would be a ridiculous position.

If it was binding the government wouldn't be using royal prerogative (or trying to) because they would already have parliamentary authority through the referendum act.

The uk is ruled by parliament (the commons and the lords). The commons is considered to have more legitimacy because they are elected by the people.

The reason why parliament cannot be bound by the courts is parliamentary sovereignty and if, whilst in the EU, parliament legislated in a manner that was incompatible with it's commitment to the EU the issue would be relations between the U.K. and the EU not the parliament and the people.

The whole court case was based on a general acceptance by everybody that the result is not binding. Literally no-one is in all seriousness arguing that the result is binding because otherwise the government would not need to try and use prerogative powers.

No, it would be disagreeing with leaving the EU. It is not possible to argue with the result of the referendum. The result is fact. It is still perfectly possible to argue that leaving the EU is a bad idea. If that were not possible we would be living in a dictatorship that did not allow freedom of speech.

^This.

I accept that there was a Leave majority in the referendum and therefore, failing a massive change in circumstances (don't ask me what, possibly the four horsemen of the apocalypse) the UK will be Leaving the EU in some way. Nevertheless I think it is a bad idea and will have bad consequences for many people and for an unknown length of time, and will continue to point this out until Cllr Holliday and the readerships of the Express/Mail/Telegraph drag me into the Tower to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

The ultimately question is whether UK is ruled by the people or by a group of MPs.

Then 48% of MPs should represent the people who want to remain in the EU, just as the Green Party and the SNP continue to represent their supporters.

What you are really arguing is that the people in the minority shouldn't have a voice. That isn't respecting the people.

"After each general election, the opposition loses but can vote against government policies with which it disagrees. "

Of course they can. But the situation here is say, already decided on the runway and then when it comes to a a compensation bill, MPs decided to vote against it as a protest against something that has already been agreed (the runway).

In this case, within the sensitivity of international negotiations, they can input into the follow up processes, but not go dwell on a decision that has already been made.

They are welcome to vote. If they block it than we will have a GE in 2017 and it could result in a Trump like scenario.