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.

I really don't get the leaver angst over this

Imagine the UK had voted to stay in the EU but for some reason the PM decided said the vote was only advisory and we were leaving anyway. They held a vote and MP's repealed the European Communities Act.

How do you think remainers would feel? Because that's how leavers feel its going.

Imagine the UK had voted to stay in the EU but for some reason the PM decided said the vote was only advisory and we were leaving anyway.
If this ridiculous scenario ever happened, I would expect the terms of our departure from the EU to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Supper no that doesn't work.

This court order is not enforcing the opposite decision. It is ensuring that the law change goes through due legal process, debate and consultation.

The very reverse of your argument.

Most of our elected representatives are stating (apart from the lib dems) that article 50 must be triggered.

The thing that hasn't been ascertained is how us leaving is to happen and this is where the course through parliament is essential. Nobody should get the choice of a hard or soft brexit. The elected representatives of the people must represent their constituents in getting what the people want from leaving.

The elected representatives of the people must represent their constituents in getting what the people want from leaving.
It almost makes you feel sorry for politicians, given the disparate views on what Brexit actually is.

Super mummy

Perhaps finding out and investigating what you are voting for and how it will be implemented afterwards.

twofingerstoGideon
Seriously you would just shrug and say ok that is fair as long as MPs look at it.

MPs will get their chance later. This is about triggering article 50. It needs to be a rubber stamp of the referendum vote.

Mr Dos Santos, a Brazilian hair dresser, started legal action four days after the referendum, long before we knew anything other than 'Brexit means Brexit'. That doesn't seem to support his idea that as a Brexiteer he foresaw TM would plan to enact A50 without an Act of Parliament

He's a plant

"No True Scotsman!"

I disagree - we need a plan not just blundering over the cliff.

And who said being an MP was easy

BishopBrennansArse

I agree the court is not enforcing the opposite, I am saying that is what giving MP's a veto is likely to cause.

My hypothetical about the opposite was to explain how people 'feel', nothing else.

Most of our elected representatives are stating ... that article 50 must be triggered
Yes, they are saying that, but then go on to explain its conditional on their approval of detailed scrutiny of the terms of Brexit aka not supporting Brexit unless we stay in EU in all but name.

Couldn't have put it better than Newsthump

newsthump.com/2016/11/03/we-won-you-lost-get-over-it-brexiters-told-outside-high-court/

"Brexit supporters have been ‘gently encouraged’ to accept the rule of law and allow parliament to vote on whether Article 50 should be triggered.

The High Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, leaving all Brexit supporters having to get over it.

Remain campaigner, Simon Williams, told us, “The entire Brexit movement is really big on accepting results, so we have no doubts whatsoever that they will give a knowing nod at this result and simply get over it.

“I shouldn’t imagine there’ll be a single dissenting voice to be heard anywhere in their ranks, as they tell each other they lost fair and square, and it’s time to move on with their lives.

“After all, when you lose, you’ve got to try and get over it. That is the only option available to losers, as they have taught us all so well over the last few months.

“Of course, they might want to try and overthrow the democratic rule of law, but then we might find we get some new portmanteaus like ‘crying Brexitears’ and ‘throwing a Brexitantrum’.”"

The elected representatives of the people must represent their constituents So why are people being told to ignore their constituents and block Brexit.

And let us not forget that if MPs want to represent their constituents' views accurately, they should remember that the most recent poll suggests that the majority of the public would now vote against Brexit, having realised belatedly what a shower of shit it all is and that no-one in charge has a clue of how to do it or can agree what it is supposed to involve.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-majority-uk-remain-eu-theresa-may-article-50-second-referendum-latest-a7395811.html

Looks like a second referendum so the public can change their views in the light of the facts rather than the lies they were fed pre-referendum 1, is pretty essential.

Supermummy - the public no longer want Brexit. Sorry. See my link.

So MPs should do their job and follow their consciences and vote against it.

After all, you Brexiteers wanted sovereignty to return to Parliament, didn't you? That's what you voted for, after all.

Super mummy - fantastic posts. Nailing every point.

Polls? Second referendums? But a majority is meaningless - why bother?

We knows polls can't be relied on.

And even if we had a second referendum and remain won, it would only be 1:1 and we would have to have a third referendum as a decider.

I really can't see that they'd get away with another referendum.

But this does need to go through Parliament to appropriately shape how we will go forward.

The point is that if MPs are supposed to represent their constituencies, they shouldn't assume that the result of the first referendum provided any kind of blueprint for their action.

They should vote with their consciences on this as always - if MPs always followed their voters rather than voted for the good of the country, we'd live in a very different country to the one we do live in. We'd have the death penalty, for example.

Luckily, we rely on our MPs to do what is best for the country rather than blindly follow the will of Dacre or Rupert Murdoch. Or those who base their political understanding on the Mail, Sun or Telegraph.

A referendum is only advisory, so it was known by all those campaigning but was this brought up by either side or was it questioned before 24 June about this going through parliament?

Did farage or Boris at any time bring this up? Remain didn't need to worry as if they won nothing would be triggered, a basic status quo and continue

Now maybe the referendum was advisory but the PM at the time promised everyone that the result would be enacted. And I think most people were under the expectation that it would be also. People did not vote knowing that their vote was meaningless. Was it?

You know I wish Cameron had triggered a50 using the royal prerogative and swiftly negotiated a Norway style deal. After all that fulfils the brief and all the leavers would have been happy with him getting on with it without any other pesky politicians getting in the way and interpreting the vote differently.

I'm assuming most leavers are only happy with bypassing the correct parliamentary procedures because they assume Theresa May is going to go for the kind of Brexit they want (i.e. FOM is a red line).

Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

LittlePickleHead , I feel what your saying, I was/am a big DC fan if he had gotten us a better deal. But the truth is that leavers want to leave the EU. A Norway deal is not leaving the EU.

We want our own country back, we dont want to be a region of the united states of Europe. Why is that so wrong?

Outrageous really that it's perfectly acceptable and even reasonable for MPs to follow their own whims and ignore what people voted for. Ignoring the referendum result is flirting with authoritarianism. The EU seems to be inducing a Big Brother style surrender in some Remainers..