Reality Check: Could High Court ruling on Article 50 scupper Brexit?

[geetee]

As far as I was concerned the conservatives pledged the people would get a vote on the re-negotiated eu deal if they were voted in.

The government surely has a right to govern the country without the micro-management of parliament. If they missed something that parliament should have been consulted on I think that's only because expected the UK to vote remain.

Clearly the government didn't take the right advice if the ruling is upheld.
as they thought they could go right ahead.

What saddened me was that bringing this matter up SEEMED TO ME to be against the spirit of what the UK people in %age terms narrowly voted for.

Two points
1) Whatever the spirit of the issue is the Government in their haste to placate the Tory party put in the Referendum legislation that it was indeed an advisory decision only. It's there in black and white which means it has to be confirmed (or not) by MPs in parliament

2) The court ruling itself was on the exact point that you mention The Government itself does NOT have executive power to instigate Article 50, the Court ruled that any changes in the law requires the assent of parliament and not just the opinion of the Government. Maybe the Government didn't take the right advice but as a layman I have always thought it pretty obvious that Parliament is sovereign in making or changing laws and not the current government, allowing the party in power to take such executive decisions would remove all legislation from MP scrutiny i.e a dictatorship or one party state.

Bringing up the legal issue was VITAL as it stops any legal challenges further down the line which could have effectively ruled that the Government alone had exceeded their power by removing us from the EU without the agreement of Parliament scrutiny. Imagine the chaos in 2 years time if the European Court ruled our internal process illegal and as such we had never legally left?

 

[HebridesRob]

Theresa May has insisted the government is "getting on" with Brexit, following a High Court ruling that Parliament must vote on when the formal process of leaving the EU can get under way.

The prime minister urged MPs and peers to "remember" the referendum result.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage warned of protests on the streets if the decision in favour of Brexit was ignored.

But the campaigner who brought the High Court case said it would stop ministers acting like a "tin-pot dictatorship".

Judges ruled on Thursday that Parliament should vote on when the government could trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mrs May has promised to get this done by the end of next March.

The government, which argues ministers already have the powers to trigger Article 50 without MPs and peers having a vote, has vowed to fight to get the ruling overturned next month in the Supreme Court.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said his party would block the triggering of Article 50 in Parliament if Mrs May did not guarantee continued access to European the single market.

Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, Gina Miller, the investment manager who brought the High Court case against the government, said: "Everyone in this country should be my biggest fan, because we have used our own money to create certainty about the way ahead."

She added: "Do we want a country where we have no process?"

But Mr Farage said the court's decision meant the country was faced with "half Brexit", adding that the "reach of the European Union into the upper echelons of this country makes it quite difficult for us to trust the judgement".

He warned: "If the people of this country think that they're going to be cheated, they're going to be betrayed, then we will see political anger, the likes of which none of us in our lifetimes have ever witnessed."

Asked if there was a danger of disturbances in the street, he replied: "Yes, I think that's right."

Mr Farage said: "The temperature of this is very, very high. I'm going to say to everyone who was on the Brexit side, 'Let's try and get even. Let's have peaceful protests and let's make sure, in any form of election, we don't support people who want to overturn this process.'"

The row has escalated in recent days, with several newspapers being highly critical of the judges who made the decision, the Daily Mail branding them "Enemies of the people".
Mrs May insists the government will not be put off its Brexit timetable. Under this, the two years of negotiations with the EU are due to end in 2019, when the UK will leave the 28-member organisation.

Speaking at Heathrow Airport as she left for a trade mission to India, Mrs May said: "I think we all have to remember, and what MPs and peers have to remember, is that we had a vote on 23 June.
"The British people, the majority of the British people, voted to leave the European Union. The government is now getting on with that."

'Latitude'

She added: "I want to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the UK as we leave the EU, that's the best possible deal for trading with and operating within the single European market.

"But alongside that, the UK will be a confident, outward-looking nation, taking its place on the world stage, looking to build relationships around the globe."

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told The Andrew Marr Show said Mrs May had to be allowed "latitude" when negotiating with the EU over Brexit.

He said: "The impact on the economy will be far worse if through some parliamentary mechanism Theresa May is forced to lay out her entire negotiating strategy."

It was, anyway, "highly unlikely that Parliament would not, in the end, back a decision to trigger Article 50", Mr Hunt said.

'Spanner in works'

However, Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would block the prime minister from triggering Article 50 unless she agreed to the party's "Brexit bottom line", which includes access to the European single market.

He told the Sunday Mirror: "The court has thrown a big spanner in the works by saying Parliament must be consulted. We accept the result of the referendum.

"We are not challenging the referendum. We are not calling for a second referendum. We're calling for market access for British industry to Europe."

Mr Corbyn said the opposition would not allow Article 50 to go ahead unless Mrs May agreed four principles:

access to the single market

a commitment to EU workplace rights

guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment

A pledge to commit funds for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit

The Labour leader said his party "would be ready" if the government decided to call an early election.

But Mr Hunt said: "I think a general election is, frankly, the last thing the government wants.

"Theresa May wants to get on with the job and frankly it is the last thing the British people want, with all these very, very important national decisions."


BBC News.

If ever it were needed this nicely shows the press as what they are. Organs of the elite using their influence to direct what people think rather doing the job that they should do, which is report on actual facts.

This decision has nothing to with whether the referendum should be applied or not. What it does is say that the government's intention to legislate without the scrutiny of parliament is illegal. We should be applauding the judiciary for upholding the law and protecting our democracy.

https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/on...y-mail-wrong-judiciary/#.WBxrfkavHtV.facebook

"Contrary to the screaming headlines in some British newspapers today, yesterday’s High Court decision did not thwart the will of 17 million Brexit voters. The High Court did not decide the EU referendum “did not count”.
In a carefully considered and compelling judgment, some of Britain’s most senior and respected judges quietly restored supremacy to the centuries-old tradition of parliamentary sovereignty in this country. In short, yesterday’s judgment protects our democracy, rather than betrays or undermines it."

 

[HebridesRob]

As far as I was concerned the conservatives pledged the people would get a vote on the re-negotiated eu deal if they were voted in.

They got in labour didn't. So the government had the referendum result to deliver. I'd have thought they would have considered what needed to be in place for a leave vote because for a stay vote it would been an agreed process and less work? The government surely has a right to govern the country without the micro-management of parliament. If they missed something that parliament should have been consulted on I think that's only because expected the UK to vote remain.

Clearly the government didn't take the right advice if the ruling is upheld.
as they thought they could go right ahead.

What saddened me was that bringing this matter up SEEMED TO ME to be against the spirit of what the UK people in %age terms narrowly voted for.

What concerns me now is, as our Nederlander Forumite has pointed out is that the Country is pretty much split on this issue.

I'll stop now as i'm veering OT - time for a cycle, then a beer :grin:

Really? You vote for an MP to represent you, you don't vote for the government. You vote for an MP to attend parliament to scrutinise what the government does. It is the point.

 

[HebridesRob]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/

 

[dad_of_jon]

Really? You vote for an MP to represent you, you don't vote for the government. You vote for an MP to attend parliament to scrutinise what the government does. It is the point.

I voted for an MP that belonged to the party whose policies I most agreed with.

The MP for our constituency will have very little influence individually.

They vote most of the time in line with the partys policy the way the party whips tell them, unless they don't care a fig about getting a cushy party role.

So I voted for party X which by the way didn't form the government but thats life and neither did the MP I voted for get in either.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Constitutional change to make referendums binding sounds good to me, will it ever happen, i think not.

Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJL_ceZ9SI[/ame]

 

[HebridesRob]

I voted for an MP that belonged to the party whose policies I most agreed with.

The MP for our constituency will have very little influence individually.

They vote most of the time in line with the partys policy the way the party whips tell them, unless they don't care a fig about getting a cushy party role.

So I voted for party X which by the way didn't form the government but thats life and neither did the MP I voted for get in either.

I detest our voting system.

 

[HebridesRob]

Constitutional change to make referendums binding sounds good to me, will it ever happen, i think not.

I'd prefer we never had referenda but who said this one won't be binding?

 

[dad_of_jon]

Two points
1) Whatever the spirit of the issue is the Government in their haste to placate the Tory party put in the Referendum legislation that it was indeed an advisory decision only. It's there in black and white which means it has to be confirmed (or not) by MPs in parliament

I have to agree that the referendum promise backfired on DC or was it just that the deal on the table was pants? However having held a referendum government should follow the wishes of the winning side of the vote.

Ok I understand it was advisory. Why bother asking if you don't intend to follow it through.

I'm concerned about us discussing our brexit negotiation stance in public. The EU will be able to take advantage of this.

TBF we've said out. The follow on should be about whats most important to us? - keep free trade or stop free movement the eu arent going to let us have the lot are they?

I remember some time ago that a US senator let it be known that we listened in on BIN ladens calls. - guess what - he stopped using mobile phones.

In ww2 we successfully kept the fact we broke Enigma Secret. Imagine if an MP had said we now have the advantage as we can break the enemy's codes.

Sometimes you have to trust the Government to get on with a job without Parliament wanting to micro-manage every little issue. If you're not happy you have the chance to vote them out every 5 or so years.

 

[dad_of_jon]

I detest our voting system.

I can understand that. :thumb:

There should be some PR involved methinks.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I'd prefer we never had referenda but who said this one won't be binding?

No one but legally the Government can ignore the results, if they were binding (as discussed in the video) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[zippy40]

Interesting comment, lets make income tax 90% so we can all have full pay, index linked pensions shall we?

It all comes from Tax payers. Slash and burn 90% of quangoes, get these people into jobs where they have to do REAL work for a change, like picking carrots something worthwhile.

I think you are missing the point of what I said. The so called gold plated pensions that still exist in the public sector are what government should ensure for all workers.

Public sector pensions are not taxed directly - each person pays into it in the same fashion as any other pension. The employer then pays a certain amount to it too and a pension pot is built up. The only difference between public sector pensions and most private employee pensions now is that of defined benefits.

By public sector workers, I mean Doctors, nurses, teachers, civil servants, NHS workers etc etc. I don't mean the fat cats on Quangos.

90% income tax would never be needed to fund such a system. Indeed if it were administrated correctly, it would have a negligible cost to tax payers because it would be paid for by both workers and employers.

 

[Russ146]

No one but legally the Government can ignore the results, if they were binding (as discussed in the video) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Actually NO they cant.

The government made their decision when the called the referendum and allowed the people to choose. The result is final and anything else will be the end of democracy as we know it.

 

[Russ146]

I think you are missing the point of what I said. The so called gold plated pensions that still exist in the public sector are what government should ensure for all workers.

Public sector pensions are not taxed directly - each person pays into it in the same fashion as any other pension. The employer then pays a certain amount to it too and a pension pot is built up. The only difference between public sector pensions and most private employee pensions now is that of defined benefits.

By public sector workers, I mean Doctors, nurses, teachers, civil servants, NHS workers etc etc. I don't mean the fat cats on Quangos.

90% income tax would never be needed to fund such a system. Indeed if it were administrated correctly, it would have a negligible cost to tax payers because it would be paid for by both workers and employers.

I can tell you're a civil servant with no concept of the real world where businesses have to compete to make a profit and survive.

Met someone last night that lived in Italy, their council tax is £120 a year.
Here its £2000 for the same sized house.

Nothing but cockroach parasites the lot of them.

 

[geetee]

Actually NO they cant.

The government made their decision when the called the referendum and allowed the people to choose. The result is final and anything else will be the end of democracy as we know it.

Of course they can ignore it. Legally the result is advisory only and has to be ratified in parliament however it is unlikely that most MPs would put themselves against the voters but could if they wanted to retire from politics.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Of course they can ignore it. Legally the result is advisory only and has to be ratified in parliament however it is unlikely that most MPs would put themselves against the voters but could if they wanted to retire from politics.

That was the way i read it. :thumb:

 

[Bigcol49]

The government made their decision when the called the referendum and allowed the people to choose. The result is final and anything else will be the end of democracy as we know it.

"The people" cannot choose to leave the EU as we do not live in a direct democracy.
The people (or 1.3 million of them) have advised Parliament that leaving the EU is what they want. They are saying, in fact, "We want Parliament to introduce an Act of Parliament that will repeal the European Communities Act 1972, by which the |UK joined the EEC, and the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, by which the UK joined the EU.
We cannot proceed further in our withdrawal from the EU without an Act of Parliament to make it legal, and that is the issue that was decided by the court.

 

[geetee]

"The people" cannot choose to leave the EU as we do not live in a direct democracy.

As you say although "the people" voted no it is a practical impossibility for 17 million people to gather , agree terms and push through legislation to take us out, that way chaos lies. this is why we have a Parliamentary democracy system with Parliament supposedly putting the will of the people into action.

I am not suggesting that MPs should ignore this vote but there are lots of issues in the past where MPs once elected freely do ignore the will of the people sometimes good and sometimes bad. For instance I reckon if you asked "the people" if you wanted to bring back hanging for certain offences* you would probably get a yes but MPs have consistently voted against this, is that not denying the will of the people?
This is one of the reasons why we tend not to have referenda and certainly not binding as "the people" do not always know best.

* I am not suggesting that we should bring back hanging it's just an example ( well maybe just for publicans who sell bad pints!)

 

[HebridesRob]

 

[HebridesRob]

Lord Rothermere, the great grandfather of the current owner of the Daily Mail.