Govt has to go back to Parliament over Brexit

[whoputthecatout]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

Well, that's set the cat among the pigeons.

Govt. will appeal but the referendum is only advisory constitutionally so the remainers will be hand-rubbing in glee, sensing an opportunity to thwart the referendum result.

Who said I think that? Are you arguing with someone else? This is not about 'the process' ~ this is about triggering article 50. So as brexit will happen, according to you, why the problem with triggering article 50? It starts the process only - and that, according to you, is inevitable. Triggering article 50 needs no oversight.

You are hoping to frustrate it by delay so that you end up with still having freedom of movement and still being a member of the single market. Ie you want to block brexit.

Yes there is a way around the lords although it could take years and doing so gives the majority of remainer MPs an excuse to block leaving the EU and over ruling the will of the people. That is why this ruling needs to be over turned at the supreme court asap.

Tenants: everybody knows that is years of delay - You want to string it out to 2020 - then you want to say 'well things have changed a lot since 16, we need a new referendum.

Most campaigning remainers are such liars, apart from Clegg who comes out and admits his anti democratic ambitions.

The three judges are wrong I am not saying they were wrong on legal grounds because I am not a lawyer. I am saying they are wrong on democratic grounds because they are telling the executive they cannot execute the result of a referendum created by an act of parliament which delegated our continued membership of the EU to a referendum of the people. Which resulted in a majority of 1.27 million people.

The judges answered the constitutional law question asked of them, and no more (as they make clear in the judgment). The political consequences of that are not something they can or should consider, because political issues are a matter for parliament.

This is what an independent judiciary does: they arrive at judgments on the basis of what is right in law, no matter how politically inconvenient or controversial those judgments might be. We shouldn't have it any other way.

The political issues are something MPs and Lords will have to consider very carefully. I voted Remain, but if I were an MP with the opportunity to prevent Brexit by voting against it in Parliament I am not sure that I could. It would be very damaging to our democracy to hold a referendum then ignore the result. I think I would have to vote for Brexit but also for careful scrutiny of the terms and conditions the government should negotiate for 9assuming that there is any negotiation).

WindPowerRanger I agree with your legal assessment and whatever the supreme court decides I will accept but I will object very very noisily if the decision is then taken to the European court.

But your assessment of MPs voting for Brexit is flawed. Because what exactly is it that you want to scrutinise? You cannot scrutinise a treaty that has not yet been negotiated with the EU and cannot begin to be negotiated until after A50 is triggered.

So what you really want is for MPs to put forward amendments, binding the government to certain conditions eg membership of the single market and if they do not get what they want they will not vote for A50.

And thus it becomes stay in the EU or leave the EU in name but still stay in the EU and say its all the governments fault because that is the deal they struck.

You all want to look at the threads in the EU Referendum section of mumsnet on this.

The judgement is in line with democracy. It should be seen as part of an ongoing struggle between the power of the executive government (dominated by party ideology) and the power of parliament, a body named for the debate, negotiations, compromises and, y'know, parleying that is essential to try and get the best results that will satisfy as many people's interests as possible (ok we all know parliament is not at its most representative right now but it is better than one wing of one party). Given the enormity of the enterprise we are now embarked on for good or ill it is essential that different views and perspectives,and if possible different solutions, are heard.

I am really gobsmacked by the hypocrisy of these tabloids that honestly equate the executive's declared intent to use 'royal prerogative' to push what they want through as fast as possible with 'the will of the common people'. You are listening to lies and deceit if you think the interests of a right wing branch of a right wing party are in any way similar to the interests of the ordinary person who can already barely afford to live in Britain. Even members of the Tory party are beginning to baulk. They do not care about you.

'hypocrisy'... 'honesty'... well I don't know what it is but it needs to bloody stop, it's pulling what's left of this shambolic mess of a country apart at the seams.

You are hoping to frustrate it by delay so that you end up with still having freedom of movement and still being a member of the single market. Ie you want to block brexit.

Some leavers want a Brexit in which the single market and FOM are retained in some form. Who are you to tell them that doesn't count as Brexit?

None of that has any bearing on triggering areticle 50

In fact you have to ask yourself exactly why, in a state that claims to be a 'democracy' of any flavour, why do 'crown prerogative' powers even exist. Outside wartime (possibly).

WW, if that's aimed at me, correct, the court decision has no bearing on triggering article 50. It does have a bearing on the way in which we exit. As someone pointed out on the other threads, Brexit is not the simple affair that it was portrayed by the ludicrously uninformed and unplanned referendum. There are any number of different treaties involved all of which need renegotiating. We need information about how it can best be progressed.

No it was aimed at David.

Some leavers want a Brexit in which the single market and FOM

Really pre-referendum? I think what you mean is post-referendum remoaners in leavers clothing. What is the difference between being in the EU and being in the single market with FOM? Its the start of a bad joke, not exit from the EU.

And the court decision is about triggering 50

Why, in a state that claims to be a 'democracy' of any flavour, why do 'crown prerogative' powers even exist.

Because it is necessary in this country to have a strong functioning government. Not death by committee or MPs ignoring the will of the people.

In this case the people voted clearly to leave the EU. Enacting A50 is necessary to do that without being used a device to force other agendas. Once the process has started then MPs can fight it out as to what the destination or details of negotiations are.

It is about how Brexit is to be achieved.

There are no plans. There never were any plans. We need some in place before pressing the stopwatch countdown.

The fact that there is pressure from Europe to start the stopwatch tells you the referendum is absolute and we have no choice but Brexit now. They're telling us to sling our hook if we don't like them. You've achieved that. Congratulations. So why are all the vocal anti-EU brexiteers now dancing to the EUs tune and demanding we force through an early a50 with no plans in place??

If that's thekind of 'strong, functioning' government you want weshould never have executed Charles II.

Or Charles I even.

The court ruling is not about how brexit is to be achieved.

It is giving Parliament a say in the plans, insisting that the crown prerogative cannot be used - that the executive under Theresa May shoukd stop acting as if it were Charles I. That is all. If the government is so convinced that it's plans are great why not let us - via parliament - examine them first? There are no grounds for this mass hysteria that the irresponsible tabloids are pushing. We do not need any more conflict found and stoked right now. Who gains from this?

No, it is for them to approve or not approve Article 50.

Of course it should be discussed
The vote, built on lies but hey ho, didn't give May the right to act as a dictator
All areas of the UK should be able to discuss the terms

It gave her the right to trigger article 50.

None of that has any bearing on triggering areticle 50

Because of the way the article 50 process is set up, if parliament wants to exercise any meaningful control over the exit process, it has to get involved before article 50 is triggered. After article 50 notification, the executive is in the driving seat, it will go off and try to negotiate a deal with the EU27. If parliament doesn't like the deal it comes back with, it can't meaningfully block it as the only alternative is an exit without a deal, i.e. trading on WTO terms which is pretty much the worst case scenario. The vote on the so-called Great Repeal bill doesn't provide any scope for meaningful control either, as it only takes effect after Brexit and pretty much everyone agrees that it's the only feasible approach anyway.

That's why it's so important that parliament is involved before article 50 is triggered; it's the only way it can have any real influence.

Your first sentence is an assertion, not a self evident truth. It is the claim made by remainers.