UK Supreme Court Decision Today (24/01)

[Rita Sherry]

Royal

I totally agree with the last paragraph of your post. I actually pointed out the provisions of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 months ago (albeit on the Cyprus Living Site) when the result of the Referendum became known. Likewise I am not at all surprised by the decision of the Supreme Court but I would like to read the judgment transcript first in order to see their Lordships reasoning particularly those who were not in favour. My initial reaction is not to doubt the Government will carry the day in the Commons and in all probability the Lords as it is not a god given right for that House to reject legislation approved by the lower House - remembering always the Lords is not an elected body whereas the Commons is which would place the Lords in a difficult position justifying acting contrary to the will of the people. However we shall all see.

Rita

[ApusApus]

Royal

I totally agree with the last paragraph of your post. I actually pointed out the provisions of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 months ago (albeit on the Cyprus Living Site) when the result of the Referendum became known. Likewise I am not at all surprised by the decision of the Supreme Court but I would like to read the judgment transcript first in order to see their Lordships reasoning particularly those who were not in favour. My initial reaction is not to doubt the Government will carry the day in the Commons and in all probability the Lords as it is not a god given right for that House to reject legislation approved by the lower House - remembering always the Lords is not an elected body whereas the Commons is which would place the Lords in a difficult position justifying acting contrary to the will of the people. However we shall all see.

Rita

Wow


Shane

[Mrblobby]

Did parliament have to vote to get us into the EU ? If not it does not appear correct that they have to vote to get us out .

[Jimgward]

Labour and Conservative are backing a Brexit expedited vote. It will pass in the Commons and not be affected by the Lords. Both parties would ask their respective auld farts and others, to back the commons vote.

Brexit will happen as Article 50 will be posted soon.

It is fair and right than people were able to use Super Court powers to decide what parliament should do.

May will be forced to outline her brexit plans in more detail (if she has any more)

[Dominic]

Did parliament have to vote to get us into the EU ? If not it does not appear correct that they have to vote to get us out .

Yes they did.

[Royal]

I respect the Supreme Court decision completely and unequivocally. Parliament is sovereign and I was in favour of Brexit mainly on this one issue. Immigration was another Brexit issue which I felt needed to be addressed and that does not make me a racist, a xenophobe, or a 'Little Englander'. It makes me a concerned citizen.

However, I'm appalled at some of the implications that the Supreme Court decision has created which, in effect, means that Parliament can thwart the will of the people by voting against triggering Article 50. Whilst I don't believe that this will ultimately happen, it is now a real possibility that a majority of 650 of our 'great and good' can override the will of 17.4 million people. Just listen to some of the rhetoric coming from some of our 'representatives' in the House of Commons.

Tim Farron has stated that the Lib Dems want another Referendum and to that end, the entire party (all 8 of them!) will be voting against triggering Article 50 unless Parliament agrees to having another Referendum at the end of the process. This is regardless of what the people these MPs represent actually voted for in the referendum. Let's just suppose, for example, that this ludicrous idea was considered. We trigger Article 50, Theresa May goes into negotiations with the EU which have to be concluded in 2 years. Whatever deal is eventually struck, according to the Lib Dems (and other looney parties) has to be put to the people in a Referendum. Supposing the people then say "No". What then? Do we expect the EU to just extend the 2 year deadline to accommodate us? Fat chance! Do we say to the EU "Actually, we made a mistake in the first Referendum. All is forgiven and we want to forget the 2 year negotiation and stay in the club". Absolutely not! We simply fall off the edge of the cliff. Ouch!

Then we have the Labour Party pushing for a detailed plan from Theresa May - effectively setting out her negotiating position both before and during the talks - even though this would give the EU the upper hand. It really begs the question - are the Labour Party behind the will of the people or are they playing for time?

Finally, we have the SNP. Despite the fact that the Parliamentary vote has not yet been tabled, the SNP have announced that they will submit 50 amendments for no other reason than to hold up the vote. This is the party which got 1.4 million votes in the 2015 General Election (4.7% of the total votes cast) and 56 seats when UKIP got 4 million votes (12.6% of the votes cast) and only 1 seat in Parliament. Oh, I forgot the House of Lords. Not one single vote, yet they have the power to prevaricate and delay legislation.

Democracy in action? I don't think so!

[Wallace]

Superb post Royal!
A general election, despite changes to legislation, may be required. Labour can give the 66 % majority needed for an election, or lose even more credibility, if that is possible.

[Conoflex]

I agree Royal - what was the point of giving people the power to make a decision on the EU via a referendum only to insist on having that power back to implement it - that makes very little sense. I'm sure all those screaming about Parliamentary sovereignty aren't going to be doing so if the Lords can thwart the Bill

There are so many people who would try to undermine democracy by insisting it is carried out to the letter in the hope that in the interim and with the delays something might fundamentally derail the process.

I smell a bit of a rat, but I don't think the ordinary people of the UK are in the mood to let it get in the way.

[cyprusgrump]

I agree Royal - what was the point of giving people the power to make a decision on the EU via a referendum only to insist on having that power back to implement it - that makes very little sense. I'm sure all those screaming about Parliamentary sovereignty aren't going to be doing so if the Lords can thwart the Bill

There are so many people who would try to undermine democracy by insisting it is carried out to the letter in the hope that in the interim and with the delays something might fundamentally derail the process.

I smell a bit of a rat, but I don't think the ordinary people of the UK are in the mood to let it get in the way.

Agreed...

The worm has turned...

[cyprusgrump]

The Bill is in!

[geoffreys]

The Bill is in!

That is all that is needed.
Geoff.

[keving]

The Bill is in!

That is all that is needed.
Geoff.

Why didn't Theresa May produce this bill 83 days ago instead spending millions appealing the High Court decision?

She could have, couldn't she?

[Conoflex]

I can only assume May wanted to conduct the entire exit process with as much of the the Royal Prerogative intact as possible?

I presume if she had won the case over the triggering, the final negotiated deal would presumably also have been in the hands of the government?

So the Bill will indeed start the process, but the government's decision making power is going to be legally more limited at the end of the leaving process (so probably just as well clearing that up now)

As long as Article 50 is irreversible that isn’t really a problem (reject the deal means leave with no deal), but I dare say there will be legal challenges to that in the hope that the government's final deal can be rejected by Parliament and the whole process (including the referendum result) "legally" ignored

[Steve - SJD]

I agree Royal - what was the point of giving people the power to make a decision on the EU via a referendum only to insist on having that power back to implement it - that makes very little sense.

The people were not given the power to make the decision as far as I can see from what
has been revealed. The MP's briefing notes on the vote for the referendum stated that the referendum
was advisory as far as I recall. In addition the Supreme Court judges stated that one of the issues
was that there was nothing set out in the referendum act that detailed what would happen after
the vote.

All in all the original bill was poorly put together with no thought for what would come next but
clearly the power was to remain with MP's.

However, we are where we are, so Parliament will get to vote and no doubt pass the new bill
allowing the triggering of Article 50. Given that one of the aims of Brexit was to restore sovereignty
to Parliament then I am surprised that this hasn't been more widely welcomed.

Cheers

Steve

[Conoflex]

I've got no problem with Parliamentary Sovereignty- as long as Parliament doesn't lose sight of who it actually should be representing.

[geoffreys]

I've got no problem with Parliamentary Sovereignty- as long as Parliament doesn't lose sight of who it actually should be representing.

Meaning the constituents I think you suggest?
In which case the Labour MPs are right to ignore the three-line-whip when it comes to vote on the Article 50 withdrawal from EU Act.
As would MPs in any Party whose constituents also voted to "Leave".
You could apply the same argument to EVERY Act. So why have MPs at all, just have referenda on everything
Geoff.

[Conoflex]

I don't mean the constituents.

Brexit is a national issue that requires a representative government formulating an exit strategy that best suits the country. The referendum to my mind was the way of taking the issue away from the constituency aspect (which we now know does not represent the majority) to a government which actually can

So yes, if there is a referendum (and we have those once in a blue moon) there should be an imperative for MP's to comply with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of the UK and not their constituents. They did not have to vote for it, but approved it by a majority of 6-1. Even if it's not legally binding it has to be at the very least morally guiding ?

It's only the government that can respect the wishes of the majority and respect the concerns of the minority. The government is a fair mix of Remainers and Brexiteers surely? The current process is more akin to a procedural farce than a demonstration of parliamentary democracy in action