Meanwhile...... at the High Court....

It's brilliant - the people that gave Parliamentary power to the EU now want parliament to be the ultimate decision maker, and the people who wanted to 'take back control' now complain that the decision a UK court gives isn't what it should be.

Civil war and a military coup is the only way forward imho......

 

It looks like the govt are appealing (not sure if that's wise) - an election with a new mandate (either way) is the best option imho.

 

There is no evidence in this type of case - only legal submissions. They will certainly have to find new argument(s), because if youread the full 32 page judgement, the High Court has given very short shrift to those the government put forward in this case.

I think you will find that when they have cooled down and read the judgement in full, Fox and May will withdraw any appeal to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General would face embarrassment if he were to have to present this case to the Supreme Court. Also, if they lose there, the government would have the embarrassing decision as to whether to further appeal to the European Court! Better to try and work with what they've got.

 

Democracy prevails...

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

 

How would an election help? Parliament will still have to vote. Won't the fixed term elections act get in the way anyhoo? Can't say I care either way but it's interesting times.

 

An election would give the government a mandate and a majority government could use the whip to win a parliamentary vote.

The Fixed Term act can be overcome in 2-3 ways apparently - Vote of no confidence, they could introduce a law to supercede the fixed term law *for this time only*, repeal the fixed term law, and at least one other option I read earlier on the BBC site and have forgotten since...

 

Yeah the fixed term act is something I always thought would prevent an early election, but if it returned a govt with a bigger majority on the basis of their EU position then it gives the end result more legitimacy ?

Dunno, it's all a bit of a mess really.

 

I can't see how that differs to what it is now given that the electorate won't have full information to give any party a mandate. Unless they phrase their manifesto to say that they will leave however bad the deal is on whatever terms necessary etc.

A constitutional nightmare. My old politics professors must be staining their brown cords with excitement

 

Have I missed something here?

According to my understanding, the court have simply decided that before the government notifies the relevant authority at the EU that they wish to exercise their right to invoke Article 50, which is a signal to begin negotiations to leave the EU, the government must spend a day letting 650 MPs talk about it. And nothing more than that. Surely, they will all chat about it, and then, because the issue was voted on by the British people, and a clear majority wanted to leave the EU, they are bound to vote to invoke Article 50.

I am sure that there will be other issues, which in good time may well need to be referred to the courts for another decision, but surely the gun is being jumped here, when politicians and political commentators suggest that there is a constitutional crisis afoot. Or as I say, it is quite possible that I might have missed the point somewhere. I voted REMAIN, by the way.

 

Are they though ? I think that the referendum was only advisory therefore may not 'force' parliament into voting to invoke article 50 ? to be honest I'm buggered if I know.

 

No, Red Rain. The court is effectively saying that only Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Therefore, Parliament will have to vote on that before Article 50 can be triggered. Triggering of Article 50 is irreversible, so that would have the effect of nullifying ECA 1972, which in turn would compromise the sovereignty of parliament. So there has to be a vote.

 

Looks like I might need another few nights in a tent up in the hills to get away from it all. What a complete mess!

 

You could argue that they are morally bound by the decision. But as a matter of law, parlaiemnt - and not the people - is sovereign.

 

But isn't it that the act that you quote simply rubber stamped all the negotiations that had gone before, the conclusion of which allowed us to join the EU on terms that had been agreed. I cannot remember the government approaching parliament to inform MP what its negotiating tactics might be, or what they were prepared to negotiate upon and what they were not. It is admittedly a long time ago, but I think parliament just voted on the deal that was put before them. Surely, a reversal of this process begins with parliament giving the government permission to begin negotiation, followed by the government notifying the EU that we wish to leave. The government then proceeds to negotiate our exit and our future relationship with the EU, and then parliament gets to vote on the terms. The difficulty would surely arise if parliament voted against the terms negotiated by the government. Then we would have a constitutional crisis, but surely not yet.

As you can see, the law is not my strongest suit.

 

They *should* take the decision that is in the best interest of their constituents. So even if an area voted 70% to leave, if that meant the inhabitants would lose a significant income (such as the farmers in Cornwall for example), then the MP is between a rock and a hard place. They either go against the will of the people or they vote to deprive a chunk of their constituents a big amount of money. Neither way is going to do them much good. Its the same in many areas, including our own - the EU spend a big amount of money on Yorkshire annually that will go entirely....

 

Well, in 1972 we weren't actually in at that point. So the government negotiated the terms of entry and then put the matter before parliament to approve. I don't think it was a "rubber stamping" exercise, in so far as parliament could at that point have declined to pass the act and the government would have had to have started again (or given up).

With this situation, the European Communities Act 1972 is in force and we are in the EU. Parliament having taken us in, only Parliament can take us out. Now, as far as I can see, Parliament could: 1) Simply agree to Article 50 being triggered without conditions and provide that the 1972 Act is repealed from the date of the conclusion of the Article 50 negotiations; 2) Agree to that happening only after they have considered and approved the terms on which the government is going to negotiate (e.g. some form of free movement or not, single market membership or not, etc) or 3) Refuse to trigger Article 50 at all (unlikely).

It would be an absurd situation if the government triggered Article 50 and then put the final terms before Parliament, who then voted against them. But the government can't trigger Article 50 without a parliamentary vote first because that would make the 1972 Act redundant and would have contravened the sovereignty of parliament. It's now up to MP's what, if any use they make of their right to approve the triggering or not. That'sprovided the Supreme Court agrees, of course. But I expect the government to drop the Supreme Court appeal because they don't have a credible legal case.

 

Robert Peston applies hammer, very much, to head of nail...

"It is spectacularly delicious that leading Brexiteers are arguing that the High Court today got it wrong today in ruling that we cannot leave the EU without the assent of Parliament - in that almost their entire campaign to get us out of the EU was that British courts and Westminster must be sovereign, and no longer subjugated to Brussels.
We'll also hear plenty from them about a corrupt stitch up by the pro-European establishment to frustrate the revealed will of the British people that we need to be out of Europe.
But the question for Brexiteers is why on earth they want courts, MPs and Lords to have more independent power if those pillars of the British state are all so appallingly twisted and feeble.
You have to laugh, or maybe weep.
Anyway although the government is appealing the decision, the High Court ruling is an enormous spanner in the Brexit works - because there probably won't be a definitive final ruling from the Supreme Court till mid January or so.
And I have to say if I were the PM I would be planning now how best to woo europhile MPs and Lords round to the idea that they may be endangering social cohesion and trust in our most important institutions if they were to attempt to reverse the decision to leave or compel a very diluted version of Brexit.
Because the chances of the appeal succeeding do not look magnificent. The high court judgement is straightforward and compelling - that our constitution, carved and framed over many centuries, is founded on a simple idea that Parliament must have precedence over the executive, over the prime minister, on issues that affect domestic law.
And if you can think of any action as significant for domestic law as leaving the EU, you are not in the real world - which Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson all repeated like a mantra during their Brexit battle.
They can't have it both ways - though doubtless they will try."

 

The Quiet One very aptly quoted these words of Edmund Burke, regarding whether MP's should use their own judgement or merely submit to their constituents' whims:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

 

Re: In keeping with my promise to Supertyke and Jimmy Cricket to 'reign in'...

....my excessive posts on all things Brexit, I will just make one comment on this thread and it comes from Voltare....

"the ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination"

 

I voted to join the EEC. I had no choice in the matters that led us to the unelected European Commission running my affairs. Hence I voted out of rage EU,.