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.

Whims? I doubt most MPs vote on a whim.
The EU seems to be inducing a Big Brother style surrender in some Remainers.. People who feel strongly about remaining are not 'surrendering' to anything, for goodness sake. They just have a different view from you.

The PM at the time may well have promised that the deciding vote would be enacted, but he never promised it would be enacted behind closed drs without consulting parliament, which is what the present PM wants to do and in that way acting like a dictator. No one voted in the last election for a dictatorship to govern the country.

Yes he did and Jeremy Corbyn demanded it to

It's surrender to a faceless bureaucracy you imagine has your interests at heart and to MPs you imagine know better than the majority what it wants. Big Brother indeed.

"Faceless bureaucracy" - so bored of these bullshit slogans. Can we start calling the civil service out in the same way in the name of fairness? And I don't understand the paranoia fueling the accusations that this is part of a movement to stop Brexit. I am sure there are some on the remain side that would like to see it have that effect but as not all leavers are puffed up, racist Little Englanders nor are all Remainers so blinded by an obsessional passion for Europe that they think the referendum should be ignored! And to placate the cynical out there surely you don't think the average MP is going to risk their job by going against "the will of the people". I think Brexit is a complete shambles and a totally crazy decision however the referendum has happened and I don't think it is right to ignore it. It needs to happen but it needs to happen following due process and I absolutely think the form of it should be debated. Unless you want to re-run the referendum with a whole list of extra questions regarding what form of Brexit people want?

Even farage has had to admit that the refurenfum was advisory

But now he has gained what he wanted he's not happy with the way things are going so is trying bully boy tactic

Let's match on the judge, then instead of adhering to law they will bow to social pressure.

It gets worse and is made worse by the far right

And then we had Suzanne Evans on R4 this morning insinuating that the judges were corrupt and acting from self-interest. UKIP are beyond contempt.

I was sent an official leave leaflet close to the referendum specifically giving Norway as an option so that's rubbish.

You may think that's not what you voted for, but I know at least two friends who were swayed to vote leave by a more moderate idea Of what that would that would mean. I did actually have the conversation that it would actually be a pointless option, but who is to say how many more are like them?

My point still stands. You are only happy with bypassing parliament because you feel you are going to get the Brexit you want. If it was obvious we were heading towards a compromise on FOM without any discussion in parliament you would think differently.

Any deal has to represent what's best for the whole of the Uk, not just leave voters.

I don't want a Norway deal either and we don't want one as a country - our strengthen and weaknesses - needs and wants are totally different to Norway, incld geographic, why on earth would we want a Norway deal

I'm not saying anyone should want it. I'm saying that pre referendum it was touted as an example of the kind of deal we could have by the official leave campaign, and if he hadn't buggered off David Cameron could have (according to those who think the royal prerogative can be used) triggered article 50, kept negotiations quiet and gone down that route. Without parliamentary scrutiny there's not a great deal that could have been done by those that had different reasons for voting leave.

You would have been happy for him to do that I presume? Or would you have wanted some discussion and a chance for MPs to be involved in deciding our stance?

If it's the latter I'm saying it's hypocritical as the reason some
Leavers are happy to bypass parliament is because they agree with the suggested red lines. And those Tory Leavers who don't agree are feeling very uncomfortable right now.

What would happen if the Supreme Court case goes the governments way and this triggers a vote of no confidence due to the splits in the party.

I know it seems unlikely - but suspend disbelief for me. If at a GE there is a hung parliament which results in a coalition of some sort which makes a softer Brexit more likely, would you be happy for the royal prerogative to be used by the new PM (whoever that may be)? With the same level of secrecy surrounding negotiations?

Yeah bored of it too hence voting leave

@WinchesterWoman Outrageous really that it's perfectly acceptable and even reasonable for MPs to follow their own whims and ignore what people voted for.

Obviously, MPs shouldn't ignore the referendum result, but they have a duty to represent and act in the best interests of all their constituents, including those who didn't or couldn't vote in the referendum (e.g. children).

What you do and don't think of the laws of this country is irrelevant. They exist.

And according to the laws under which the referendum was run, Parliament has to get to vote on it. That is quite clear. You can dislike it and wish the referendum had been run under different rules but it wasn't. End of.

You can't suggest breaking the law just because you don't like it.

If you want to live in a country without the rule of law, I'm sure you can find many nice banana republics or military dictatorships where you might be quite happy.

Personally, I prefer doing things according to the laws of the country I live in. Especially where changing the constitution is concerned. And getting rid of the rights of millions of people.

Now you might be quite happy to give up your rights voluntarily, but you have no right at all to take my rights away. And blustering about it doesn't change that.

MPs have a duty to vote in the best interests of the country, not the best interests of some of those who voted thought on a particular day in June. Especially given that polls suggest that a referendum held today would come to a different conclusion, now so many of the lies have been exposed.

It's not clear - hence the Supreme Court challenge
MPs will have a vote and load of input
Select committee
Great repeal bill
And a vote before we leave promised by David Davis today

It's not about input - it's about blocking

We have MPs to vote for us when we can't vote ourselves. It's a workable arrangement. But now we have voted ourselves to start the process - and decided ourselves what is in the best interests of our children and future generations - they can wait to vote on the stuff there won't be a referendum on.

We have MPs to vote for us when we can't vote ourselves. It's a workable arrangement. But now we have voted ourselves to start the process - and decided ourselves what is in the best interests of our children and future generations - they can wait to vote on the stuff there won't be a referendum on.

Parliament voted to hold an advisory referendum, it did not vote to delegate the decision on EU membership to somebody else.

Not everybody could vote in the referendum, e.g. an estimated 3-4 million expatriates weren't allowed to vote in the referendum. Parliament still has a responsibility to take their interests into account.

It's not clear - hence the Supreme Court challenge

It's pretty bloody clear - I don't think there's anyone who seriously expects them to win it. They have to appeal to not look like complete idiots, but they're clearly going to lose.

The law is very clear on this.

Then again, that may be part of the plan, as far as Theresa May is concerned, in tat she clearly doesn't want Brexit. This way she will hopefully get the Remain that she wants but she gets to stand by while a load of totally innocent judges take the flak for it.

Which is pretty low really.

Yes it did tivili. That's exactly what parliament did.-and it's us that normally delegate to MPs. They are our servants: the people are the masters and mistresses.

It's actually not clear at all. Well just have to agree to disagree.