'The world of mental health and wellbeing has been rocked to its core by a bizarre global outbreak of inexplicable nervous breakdowns. Researchers are struggling to find a common cause or factor that may link or in some way help explain what is behind this mysterious epidemic of mental, or psychiatric, illnesses.
Thus far experts remain baffled as to any similarities between the cases, which to date have been reported with their own specific medical terminology...'
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
I think he's a bit of a tit but Corbyn did lie/mislead (about the situation he found himself in, albeit not the existence of such as an issue - but he presented it as reality not a simulation of a real problem), so it wasn't propaganda. As with this article 50 business the motivation I find largely irrelevant, of course he did it to embarrass Corbyn because Corbyn attacked his company, but it still showed Corbyn had good reason to be embarrassed, as any politician should be embarrassed when they are caught out in their spinning.
Arguing over which is the bigger tit is fun but unnecessary really. Fact is, trains often are overcrowded and run a crap and expensive service, and Corbyn essentially put on a skit in a train carriage and pretended it was real (his supporters won't accept that, trotting out the usual denials and saying the 'real issue' is the trains etc, but that's classic dissembling, they'd never be so generous to an opponent who span like that). The former is well known and attacking it will play well, and the latter will only add to the mix of news about Corbyn, and won't rock any of his support until more evidence that, gasp, he is in fact just like other politicians takes hold.
Politicians lie. Whether the lies take hold and assume a greater truth depends on whether the lies have a resonance with the ordinary lives of ordinary people.
You can argue, for example, that Farage lied about the effects of immigration on public services. Perhaps he did, but the lies struck a chord because in many parts of the country public services really are close to breaking. It does now take much longer to get a doctor’s appointment. His lies chimed with experience of everyday people.
Trump lied when he said "It is rigged”. But the lie does contain a greater truth because for many people, nothing does change in politics (no matter who is President or PM). His lie contains a greater truth, it chimes with everyday impressions of nothing ever changing, the same folk running the country whether they are Democrats or Republicans, Tories or Labour. The system is rigged,
Jeremy may well have lied with Virgin trains. But, it really won’t harm him because it resonates with many, many people who can see the trains (especially at peak times) are highly overcrowded.
This is not just the Corbyn base, as alleged by Southam. I know many people who commute in London. They don’t sit in first class -- like the well-paid lawyers who populate pb -- they are packed, often standing for hour long train journeys, into second class. They will side with Jeremy on this, even if Jeremy technically lied.
Excellent post , will not dent the rich Tory viewpoint on here mind you.
As an aside. I think I would definitely vote for the Eurosceptic Corbyn now. Smith is clearly a grade 1 eurofanatic who will cause a lot of trouble if he becomes leader of the opposition.
No, Smith will be what you want him to be. At the Blaenau Gwent by-election, he was a great defender of Blairite integrity.
Now, he is a great defender of true socialism.
Owen says these things about Europe because it is a convenient stick to beat Jeremy with. What he will say about Europe in a years time will depend on what is convenient for Owen.
When he is in eurosceptic South Wales talking about immigration, it would be difficult to distinguish Owen’s speeches from something written by SeanT.
What would you like Owen to be? He can be that shape.
Competent? Or is that expecting too much ?
No-one can lead the Labour Party at the moment and appear competent, because the membership is fundamentally at odds with the Parliamentary party.
Internal factionalism is not a characteristic of a competent political movement.
Until the Labour party have settled their direction of travel, there is no way any leader can appear competent.
Yeah the similarities with the Tories in the early years of the century are legion. If a party does not want to be led and has no agreed direction of travel leading it becomes impossible.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
It's gesture stuff. She's trying to build up goidwill among Tory Leavers before the hard stuff begins and she has to disappoint them.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Giving parliament a vote on it woukd not be ignoring the wishes of the people unless they voted never to declare article 50, which seems to be a very unlikely scenario. It strikes me this issue has been seized upon by sone few closed minded remainers and leavers to fight a proxy battle, the former hoping parliament won't trigger and the latter acting like suggesting parliament might need to give the go ahead is always an attempt to stop Brexit. Personally I feel like whatever the motivation if those who suggested it, determining whether parliament as a whole needed to approve the declaration was a worthy question. If indeed it does not, well, that's the government's choice I guess. It wouldn't be denying them a vote if they were not entitled to one.
The electorate voted to leave the EU. Upon any terms or conditions - by any method. So if Mrs May decides to abolish Parliament in order to do so (she won't, obviously, although there is a case to be made for postponing the next General Election if needs be in order to achieve Brexit first) she is doing what the electorate wanted.
Technically perhaps. I was more concerned whether under its own rules parliament was supposed to get a vote on such matters or not, which was a slightly more realistic possibility.
Parliament has already voted for a referendum to advise the government on this issue.
The only people now calling for Parliament to get involved are those who seek to overturn the voice of the public.
No, but it is quite a serious constitutional issue. What are the limits to perogative powers of the PM vs the soverignty of Parliament?
If it were permitted then what other organisations could be left without a vote? EFTA? NATO? UN? Or could we rejoin the EU on perogative powers of a future PM?
I am sure that a debate before invocation of A50 would be beneficial and am sure that it would pass easily.
I think that May will be stirring up trouble if there is no vote.
I tend to agree. And it seems right for Parliament to vote; otherwise you wonder what it is for.
The vote would of course go through, given that most MPs will want to respect the referendum.
The risk is that some other later vote - for example to repeat the European Community Act - presents itself as a proxy, where opponents of Brexit will now feel so constrained to respect the Referndum if the A50 vote is taken away from them and decided by the PM.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
The main arguments in favour of full Parliamentary approval being required are by Aiden O'Neil QC. May be one source of their confidence.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
I've seen a few programmes on BBC Parliament in which well-informed people say no, a vote is *not* required. But they then go on to say that they think a vote *is* needed for the move to be politically acceptable, given that the HoC supports the EU 65-70% and the HoL 85%. Especially given that the country is so divided; it would have been different if we'd had another 1975-type majority of 67*.
The first when Parliament voted for a referendum, the second when the people voted (discounting the fact it was in the Conservative Party manifesto, and that party then won a General Election).
The idea votes in Parliament improve things necessarily is not accurate. The vote on the Iraq War, setting the foolish precedent for such a thing, is a rather stark proof of this.
The Iraq vote forced a lot of especially Labour MPs to take a position on the matter, and tied them to it for posterity. Without a vote you would struggle nowadays to find anyone in Labour (other then Blair) who hasn't 'been against the war all along'...
Whatever your view on the underlying issue, this has surely to be a good thing for transparency and accountability.
As an aside. I think I would definitely vote for the Eurosceptic Corbyn now. Smith is clearly a grade 1 eurofanatic who will cause a lot of trouble if he becomes leader of the opposition.
No, Smith will be what you want him to be. At the Blaenau Gwent by-election, he was a great defender of Blairite integrity.
Now, he is a great defender of true socialism.
Owen says these things about Europe because it is a convenient stick to beat Jeremy with. What he will say about Europe in a years time will depend on what is convenient for Owen.
When he is in eurosceptic South Wales talking about immigration, it would be difficult to distinguish Owen’s speeches from something written by SeanT.
What would you like Owen to be? He can be that shape.
Competent? Or is that expecting too much ?
Owen is promising to end homelessness in 5yrs this morning
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Exactly. May knows that at some point she is going to disappoint/"betray" a lot of Leavers. She needs as much goodwill as possible before that happens.
What she may not have factored in is that betrayal is more keenly felt when you have previously been supportive of the betrayer. See David Cameron, George Osborne and Tony Blair. It could be that in playing to the Tory Leave gallery May is going to end up causing herself very big problems.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
If the lawyers are wrong (to think such a thing is possible!), I think the vote would be a relatively easy one to win. Although I do wonder if it would be a free vote, or whipped.
At the very least there is going to be a debate, probably several, in the Commons about what Brexit actually means and what the negotiating position of the Government is. May has been clear we need to work that out before Article 50 is triggered. She must be right about that.
Theresa May accused of acting like a ‘Tudor monarch’ over plans to deny parliament Brexit vote 'To trigger article 50 without first setting out to parliament the terms and basis upon which her government seeks to negotiate...would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch'
.... would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch,”
And ignoring the wishes of the people wouldn't?
Giving pa one.
The electorate voted to leave the EU. Upon any terms or conditions - by any method. So if Mrs May decides to abolish Parliament in order to do so (she won't, obviously, although there is a case to be made for postponing the next General Election if needs be in order to achieve Brexit first) she is doing what the electorate wanted.
Technically perhaps. I was more concerned whether under its own rules parliament was supposed to get a vote on such matters or not, which was a slightly more realistic possibility.
Parliament has already voted for a referendum to advise the government on this issue.
The only people now calling for Parliament to get involved are those who seek to overturn the voice of the public.
I am sure that a debate before invocation of A50 would be beneficial and am sure that it would pass easily.
I think that May will be stirring up trouble if there is no vote.
There'll be trouble regardless, but given she would win easily as you say and we will hardly be having many future referendums like this to set a precedent, there could indeed be benefits.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
I suspect the government's problem is not so much the vote, but the debate and the questions it would force them to answer, sooner than they might otherwise wish
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
I've seen a few programmes on BBC Parliament in which well-informed people say no, a vote is *not* required. But they then go on to say that they think a vote *is* needed for the move to be politically acceptable, given that the HoC supports the EU 65-70% and the HoL 85%. Especially given that the country is so divided; it would have been different if we'd had another 1975-type majority of 67*.
Thankfully the courts would decide it on a legal basis, not a political one!
Mr. B2, military action should be based on national interest, not how persuasive a case can be presented to 650 politicians who will have party political reasons for voting for or against.
And for those thinking that might not happen, because war is a serious matter, recall the ridiculous manoeuvrings of Miliband over the first Syrian vote.
.. snip .. If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
Also her cloth-eared acceptance of Sir Ivan Rogers's advice on using immigrants as pawns in Brexit negotiations. Room for improvement. But early days yet.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
Because as this very thread has shown, some Leavers think Parliament will vote not to approve the decision. I think that is incorrect, hence why there are potential benefits to including parliament in the formal decision one last time. Heck, there could be benefits to May for being forced to go to parliament rather than choosing to - she could present a position many don't like and it might be they would feel obliged to approve it as if the vote failed initially they'd face accusations of betraying the public vote even if it was only supposed to delay it until May came up with a better approach.
Mr. D, easier to blame les rosbifs than manage their borders [admittedly, their borders are rather tricky, but still].
Mr. kle4, remember that Labour MPs put Corbyn on the short list for a broad debate. They never thought he'd win.
A vote in Parliament is an opportunity for the referendum result to be overturned.
Mr. W, unless there's a reciprocal agreement for Britons overseas, it's not only a valid position for May to take but a more intelligent and fairer one than flinging guarantees at foreigners who live here whilst throwing only uncertainty at Britons living overseas.
I don't get it - they are in France, if they need to seek asylum they're already in a safe place to do so, what justification is there to transport them to Britain to seek asylum here?
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
I've seen a few programmes on BBC Parliament in which well-informed people say no, a vote is *not* required. But they then go on to say that they think a vote *is* needed for the move to be politically acceptable, given that the HoC supports the EU 65-70% and the HoL 85%. Especially given that the country is so divided; it would have been different if we'd had another 1975-type majority of 67*.
Thankfully the courts would decide it on a legal basis, not a political one!
Politically it's difficult though, because 52/48% is so narrow for a constitutional, life-changing referendum.
As an aside, I personally support Scottish independence, but I think it's daft that another life-changing question can be answered by a 51/49% vote in which some people may just be not like the UK PM (or may like the Scottish one!).
Theresa May accused of acting like a ‘Tudor monarch’ over plans to deny parliament Brexit vote 'To trigger article 50 without first setting out to parliament the terms and basis upon which her government seeks to negotiate...would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch'
.... would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch,”
And ignoring the wishes of the people wouldn't?
Giving pa one.
The electorate voted to leave the EU. Upon any terms or conditions - by any method. So if Mrs May decides to abolish Parliament in order to do so (she won't, obviously, although there is a case to be made for postponing the next General Election if needs be in order to achieve Brexit first) she is doing what the electorate wanted.
Technically perhaps. I was more concerned whether under its own rules parliament was supposed to get a vote on such matters or not, which was a slightly more realistic possibility.
Parliament has already voted for a referendum to advise the government on this issue.
The only people now calling for Parliament to get involved are those who seek to overturn the voice of the public.
I am sure that a debate before invocation of A50 would be beneficial and am sure that it would pass easily.
I think that May will be stirring up trouble if there is no vote.
There'll be trouble regardless, but given she would win easily as you say and we will hardly be having many future referendums like this to set a precedent, there could indeed be benefits.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
I suspect the government's problem is not so much the vote, but the debate and the questions it would force them to answer, sooner than they might otherwise wish
I really don't see how the government avoids that. And with Davis Fox and Boris all jockeying for position that is unlikely to go well.
If the lawyers are wrong (to think such a thing is possible!), I think the vote would be a relatively easy one to win. Although I do wonder if it would be a free vote, or whipped.
The vote has already been whipped ... by the UK voters!
Morning. Fingers crossed it finally gets the green light. And the fourth runway while they've got the diggers out, let's bring this shameful procrastination to an end and just bloody get on with it.
As I always thought. Boris will be OK, given his general estrangement from the truth and the fact that his constituency probably supports the expansion, given fhe level of employment the airport provides to constituents. He should be more worried about the NHS already planning for financial crisis in 2020 when they are supposed to be getting his promised billions.
Zak is the interesting one - he won't feel much loyalty to his London party given the mayoral campaign they forced upon him, which left him as tarnished goods, I would expect him to follow through on his original plan, so by-election in Richmond (indeed he may not even re-stand?)?
I can't see a by-election in Richmond, because I think it would be a seat the LibDems would win. (Why? Because no matter how vehemently anti-Heathrow the Conservative candidate was, they'd still be the Conservative candidate, and the Conservatives sanctioned Heathrow expansion. And, because Richmond was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country. Finally, the LibDems are still very strong on the council.)
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
I think its sensible.
Holding a vote would risk opening up all sorts of bandaged sores left over from the recently ended Tory Civil War that ran from 28th November 1990 to 13th July 2016.
If the courts rule against it will inevitably be appealed - it has much more constitutional implications regarding the Royal Prerogative than anything EU related.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords eventually did rule a vote must be hold - after protracted process vai appeal court - It would also allow triangulation - for the PM to present those doing this as anti democratic and to boost the tory vote in general - assuming that a lower court puts an injunction on stopping A50 being called before the appeal - which I suspect they would'nt, in which case she would just go ahead with A50 anyway before any appeal is heart - which would gloriously have lefties jumping up and down in outrage.
We're not a republic and we have a royal prerogative that is currently so pleases the Queen to allow her Prime Minister to use on her behalf. Thats what really sticks in the craw for lefties.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
I've seen a few programmes on BBC Parliament in which well-informed people say no, a vote is *not* required. But they then go on to say that they think a vote *is* needed for the move to be politically acceptable, given that the HoC supports the EU 65-70% and the HoL 85%. Especially given that the country is so divided; it would have been different if we'd had another 1975-type majority of 67*.
Thankfully the courts would decide it on a legal basis, not a political one!
Politically it's difficult though, because 52/48% is so narrow for a constitutional, life-changing referendum.
As an aside, I personally support Scottish independence, but I think it's daft that another life-changing question can be answered by a 51/49% vote in which some people may just be not like the UK PM (or may like the Scottish one!).
Surely it could be answered in a 50.1/49.9% or just 50% + 1 vote in favour?
It's one reason that second referendum petition was interesting. Set up by a leaver pre-vote, the thresholds it suggested might not be reasonable (I think it required 75% turnout or something), and of course it would be far too late to apply to any of the referenda we have already had, but there is an argument for some sort of thresholds, either of turnout or approval level. There is a counter that a majority is a majority, fair enough, but it is not unheard of in many countries for referenda or even votes in legislatures to require more than merely a majority.
An interesting and controversial subject re civil liberty.
Tommy Robinson and family vs police in a pub
Tommy Robinson I'm grateful to the pubs security who attempted to intervene & stop @CambsCops from persecuting my family https://t.co/TigDZ1H7Q5
I have little truck with his views but it does concern me that there does seem to be special attention given to this guy. Has he been arrested for walking on the cracks of the pavement yet?
It seems that the establishment can still be quite Soviet in its dealings with those who really get up their nose.
I remember the mortgage fraud business. Liar loan mortgage fraud was rife at the time, even among Lords but he was the one that got sent to prison for it.
Rather reminds me of countries where corruption is so endemic that giving bribes to public officials is a routine part of life - until the authorities take a dislike to you or want you out of the way for their own purposes and then howl like maiden victorian aunts seeing an uncovered table leg and prosectute you among much fanfare.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Parliament could then call a vote of no confidence in the government, and then there'd be a new election. Whether it could be done quickly enough so that PM Baron doesn't have the time to phone the EU Council is another matter! I'm sure they' be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt in that situation and reverse the declaration.
Morning. Fingers crossed it finally gets the green light. And the fourth runway while they've got the diggers out, let's bring this shameful procrastination to an end and just bloody get on with it.
As I always thought. Boris will be OK, given his general estrangement from the truth and the fact that his constituency probably supports the expansion, given fhe level of employment the airport provides to constituents. He should be more worried about the NHS already planning for financial crisis in 2020 when they are supposed to be getting his promised billions.
Zak is the interesting one - he won't feel much loyalty to his London party given the mayoral campaign they forced upon him, which left him as tarnished goods, I would expect him to follow through on his original plan, so by-election in Richmond (indeed he may not even re-stand?)?
I can't see a by-election in Richmond, because I think it would be a seat the LibDems would win. (Why? Because no matter how vehemently anti-Heathrow the Conservative candidate was, they'd still be the Conservative candidate, and the Conservatives sanctioned Heathrow expansion. And, because Richmond was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country. Finally, the LibDems are still very strong on the council.)
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
There'll be trouble regardless, but given she would win easily as you say and we will hardly be having many future referendums like this to set a precedent, there could indeed be benefits.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
I think it would be foolish not to have a vote, because a vote would be won 600-to-50 now. Which Labour MP, in a Leave voting area, would ignore his electorate? There might be two dozen Tory MPs who rebelled, the SNP, and some (although not even all) of the LibDems.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
Doesn't that go against what you just said in your hypothetical scenario about the government requiring Parliament's consent before triggering Article 50? Or do you mean only after a vote in Parliament?
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Parliament could then call a vote of no confidence in the government, and then there'd be a new election. Whether it could be done quickly enough so that PM Baron doesn't have the time to phone the EU Council is another matter! I'm sure they' be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt in that situation and reverse the declaration.
You are depending on the kindness of strangers. That sounds like a very shaky basis for a constitution.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
No, but it is quite a serious constitutional issue. What are the limits to perogative powers of the PM vs the soverignty of Parliament?
If it were permitted then what other organisations could be left without a vote?EFTA? NATO? UN? Or could we rejoin the EU on perogative powers of a future PM?
I am sure that a debate before invocation of A50 would be beneficial and am sure that it would pass easily.
I think that May will be stirring up trouble if there is no vote.
Without a vote? I seem to recall there was a vote recently. June, I think? And quite a few people took part, as I remember.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action. .
I imagine the counter would be the difference is they are enacting the popular will as per the referendum and in that scenario they would not be, however given referenda are not binding, I suppose you would be right the argument is that would be just as legal as the current position.
Committing parliament to make the decision - or dare to reverse it - seems like it eases some pressure on May personally should things go poorly, so I suppose it comes down to how big a problem would a debate and vote cause in terms or raising issues.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
Correction: Point of Information.
Point of Pedantry. Or as we know it around here .... PB as usual.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
Mr. kle4, remember that Labour MPs put Corbyn on the short list for a broad debate. They never thought he'd win.
A vote in Parliament is an opportunity for the referendum result to be overturned.
Technically. But not putting Corbyn on the ballot was not going to potentially destroy a lot of careers, topple a government or undercut an opposition in its northern heartlands. Not passing an article 50 declaration very well might.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action. .
I imagine the counter would be the difference is they are enacting the popular will as per the referendum and in that scenario they would not be, however given referenda are not binding, I suppose you would be right the argument is that would be just as legal as the current position.
Committing parliament to make the decision - or dare to reverse it - seems like it eases some pressure on May personally should things go poorly, so I suppose it comes down to how big a problem would a debate and vote cause in terms or raising issues.
One might argue that the decision is for the executive but is potentially judicially reviewable. I'm not sure that the government would particularly care for that line of argument either.
Mr. Charles, not sure if I'd be cheered by those figures if I were Corbyn. A small led over a capitalist pigdog, with over a quarter uncertain. Not great.
Corbyn. Doesn't. Care.
Would assume that DK would break for Corbyn as well. (Ie I want to say "Corbyn" but don't want to look like an idiot so will say DK)
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Parliament could then call a vote of no confidence in the government, and then there'd be a new election. Whether it could be done quickly enough so that PM Baron doesn't have the time to phone the EU Council is another matter! I'm sure they' be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt in that situation and reverse the declaration.
You are depending on the kindness of strangers. That sounds like a very shaky basis for a constitution.
I guess that's one of the downsides of the government having any prerogative powers. It can decide to do things willy-nilly.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
There'll be trouble regardless, but given she would win easily as you say and we will hardly be having many future referendums like this to set a precedent, there could indeed be benefits.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
I think it would be foolish not to have a vote, because a vote would be won 600-to-50 now. Which Labour MP, in a Leave voting area, would ignore his electorate? There might be two dozen Tory MPs who rebelled, the SNP, and some (although not even all) of the LibDems.
It might not be so clear-cut: The opposition would amend the motion to also require the government to deliver various simultaneously impossible things (full single market access, restricted immigration, 350 million pounds per week for the NHS, some kind of actual workable plan etc) and vote it down if they refused.
However, I think this would only be interesting to the opposition if there were some Tory rebels prepared to vote against the government too for whatever reason, and they had a chance of scoring a defeat.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Parliament could then call a vote of no confidence in the government, and then there'd be a new election. Whether it could be done quickly enough so that PM Baron doesn't have the time to phone the EU Council is another matter! I'm sure they' be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt in that situation and reverse the declaration.
You are depending on the kindness of strangers. That sounds like a very shaky basis for a constitution.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Parliament could then call a vote of no confidence in the government, and then there'd be a new election. Whether it could be done quickly enough so that PM Baron doesn't have the time to phone the EU Council is another matter! I'm sure they' be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt in that situation and reverse the declaration.
You are depending on the kindness of strangers. That sounds like a very shaky basis for a constitution.
I guess that's one of the downsides of the government having any prerogative powers. It can decide to do things willy-nilly.
Yep. We are a monarchy with (siginificant) elements of democracy, not a democratic republic. Don't like it? Tough.
There'll be trouble regardless, but given she would win easily as you say and we will hardly be having many future referendums like this to set a precedent, there could indeed be benefits.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
I think it would be foolish not to have a vote, because a vote would be won 600-to-50 now. Which Labour MP, in a Leave voting area, would ignore his electorate? There might be two dozen Tory MPs who rebelled, the SNP, and some (although not even all) of the LibDems.
It might not be so clear-cut: The opposition would amend the motion to also require the government to deliver various simultaneously impossible things (full single market access, restricted immigration, 350 million pounds per week for the NHS, some kind of actual workable plan etc) and vote it down if they refused.
However, I think this would only be interesting to the opposition if there were some Tory rebels prepared to vote against the government too for whatever reason, and they had a chance of scoring a defeat.
and who knows what the Labour/Lib Dem peers in the Lords will try to tack on to it.
If we do inoke Article 50, and then courts declare the invocation invalid, can that nullify the declaration? Would the EU feel bound by a British court decision, or would it get lost in the ECJ for years? Would the ECJ feel able to override the majority of the UK's voters? Or would it do what American appeals courts sometimes do, and refuse to offer an opinion, in which case the lower court's verdict stands?
Article 50 refers to the the departing country's constitutional arrangements, so there is an argument that the whole thing should be paused. However, most of the EU seems to want us gone now we have voted that way. So the course of events, if it does get that far, seems unclear to me.
There'll be trouble regardless, but given she would win easily as you say and we will hardly be having many future referendums like this to set a precedent, there could indeed be benefits.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
I think it would be foolish not to have a vote, because a vote would be won 600-to-50 now. Which Labour MP, in a Leave voting area, would ignore his electorate? There might be two dozen Tory MPs who rebelled, the SNP, and some (although not even all) of the LibDems.
It might not be so clear-cut: The opposition would amend the motion to also require the government to deliver various simultaneously impossible things (full single market access, restricted immigration, 350 million pounds per week for the NHS, some kind of actual workable plan etc) and vote it down if they refused.
However, I think this would only be interesting to the opposition if there were some Tory rebels prepared to vote against the government too for whatever reason, and they had a chance of scoring a defeat.
Yes - it is the amendments that would cause trouble. Especially the ones that sound really reasonable but in reality would really hobble our hand in negotiations with the EU.
If we do inoke Article 50, and then courts declare the invocation invalid, can that nullify the declaration? Would the EU feel bound by a British court decision, or would it get lost in the ECJ for years? Article 50 refers to the UK's constitutional arrangements, so there is an argument that the whole thing should be paused. However, most of the EU seems to want us gone now we have voted that way. So the effect, if it does get that far, seems unclear to me.
Very unclear - as we know, some in the EU have already tried to suggest we have in effect already formally started the process and the referendum was binding, when our own arrangements are anything but.
Lawyers, if not too personally upset by the outcome, must be very happy if they can get in on this sort of thing.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
Last time I checked there was only one way to leave the EU, and that was to invoke Article 50
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
What legal mechanism do you envisage invalidating hypothetical Prime Minister Baron's triggering of Article 50?
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
There will be plenty for Parliament to debate about our exit from the EU, there will be new bills to pass and old bills to repeal, trade deal to agree etc etc.
But the starting of the process, the invocation of Article 50, that has already been decided by the people, and the people expect the government to get on with it.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
There will be plenty for Parliament to debate about our exit from the EU, there will be new bills to pass and old bills to repeal, trade deal to agree etc etc.
But the starting of the process, the invocation of Article 50, that has already been decided by the people, and the people expect the government to get on with it.
It was an advisory referendum. It didn't legally decide anything.
''But the starting of the process, the invocation of Article 50, that has already been decided by the people, and the people expect the government to get on with it.''
May got that right. But her huge flaw as Prime Minister is already apparent. The shape of Brexit is completely up to her subordinates, in case it goes wrong. Nothing Is Ever Theresa's Fault.
An interesting and controversial subject re civil liberty.
Tommy Robinson and family vs police in a pub
Tommy Robinson I'm grateful to the pubs security who attempted to intervene & stop @CambsCops from persecuting my family https://t.co/TigDZ1H7Q5
I have little truck with his views but it does concern me that there does seem to be special attention given to this guy. Has he been arrested for walking on the cracks of the pavement yet?
It seems that the establishment can still be quite Soviet in its dealings with those who really get up their nose.
I remember the mortgage fraud business. Liar loan mortgage fraud was rife at the time, even among Lords but he was the one that got sent to prison for it.
Rather reminds me of countries where corruption is so endemic that giving bribes to public officials is a routine part of life - until the authorities take a dislike to you or want you out of the way for their own purposes and then howl like maiden victorian aunts seeing an uncovered table leg and prosectute you among much fanfare.
I decided to follow him on Twitter after seeing a few reports of the police obviously harassing him for no clear reason. No wonder he's so pissed off.
I only watched the first 6ish minutes of that video - but it's clear that there's an agenda totally out of proportion with his influence. Claiming his presence in a pub with his kids would lead to 'public disorder' is beyond laughable.
There's another I've followed for ages - he's been threatened on Twitter by the Met's LGBT group. He doesn't live or work in London... They named family members of his that they were watching! Talk about intimidation. He's reported them to Prof Standards.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
''But the starting of the process, the invocation of Article 50, that has already been decided by the people, and the people expect the government to get on with it.''
May got that right. But her huge flaw as Prime Minister is already apparent. The shape of Brexit is completely up to her subordinates, in case it goes wrong. Nothing Is Ever Theresa's Fault.
If it all goes tits up I'm sure she'll be in the firing line just as much as the three brexiteers!
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
Yeah, I know it is a bit hyperbolic, but the remainers just don't seem to realise that many Brexiters don't just regard the EU as an academic question as to the best form of government.
They regard the governments joining of the EU as an act of treachery which it has been their duty as subjects of HM to undermine and reverse at all costs because it is replacing the person of Her Majesty supreme Head of the Church and all the institutions and liberties that She represents with a liberal(ish) secular republic.
Its a deeply emotional thing and I suspect has tentacles going back to the restoration after Cromwells death.
There is a huge difference between the two forms of governments. The former sees reward of those who find her majesties (and hence governments) favour with that being a personal decision without let or hindrance from others.
The latter requires scrupulous and bureacratic measures to ensure equality, which tend in day to day practice to be quite obtrusive and often a facade as the backroom machinations decide it and pretend to give a scrupulous front.
In summary, those frustrated that they could not achieve a secular liberal(ish) republic by democratic means (because those running the current system had inserted enough republican characteristics to keep most people happy) saw the EU as a means of realising this republic by deception. Between 1066 and 1939 there would have been one word for that. Treason.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
48% of the country wanted to remain in the EU, they are not all traitors for wanting to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body. And given the government could if it wanted quite legally ignore the democratic will of the country on this, I feel uncomfortable suggesting those who might try that are traitors. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, so it cannot very well be unacceptable for some people to suggest it be ignored. I don't agree with it, and I don't think it would be acceptable, but it isn't treason, not even close.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
Clearly Parliament will authorise Article 50 if asked to do so. Clearly also, the only reason not to submit it to vote in Parliament is to close down any debate about the mechanics of Brexit, when no-one really knows how to go about it. If Labour where a slightly competent party they would be pushing hard on this.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
What legal mechanism do you envisage invalidating hypothetical Prime Minister Baron's triggering of Article 50?
I don't think the courts should get involved. A vote of no confidence in the Commons and the collapse of this hypothetical government would be the correct solution.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
48% of the country wanted to remain in the EU, they are not all traitors for wanting to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body. And given the government could if it wanted quite legally ignore the democratic will of the country on this, I feel uncomfortable suggesting those who might try that are traitors. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, so it cannot very well be unacceptable for some people to suggest it be ignored. I don't agree with it, and I don't think it would be acceptable, but it isn't treason, not even close.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
On your last point. Not undemocratic, just very brave, especially as we'll have lost all our opt-outs etc.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
It depends upon what the vote is on. If for example the motion referred to leaving the Single Market would there be such a clear cut majority? But Parliament will want its say on what the red lines of the government are and rightly so.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
Sounds so dreadfully American.
Her Majesties Ultimate Court would be better.
I like that.
Also sounds too American!
I refer the honourable gentleman to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
It is a matter of tactics. There are benefits to holding a vote and not holding a vote. May either thinks the best way is not to hold one or is playing a convoluted game (seems unlikely) where she is 'forced' to do so and can harness outrage from it, and only time will tell the right of it.
Comments
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_illness_is_causing_these_bizarre_slaughters/
'The world of mental health and wellbeing has been rocked to its core by a bizarre global outbreak of inexplicable nervous breakdowns. Researchers are struggling to find a common cause or factor that may link or in some way help explain what is behind this mysterious epidemic of mental, or psychiatric, illnesses.
Thus far experts remain baffled as to any similarities between the cases, which to date have been reported with their own specific medical terminology...'
Arguing over which is the bigger tit is fun but unnecessary really. Fact is, trains often are overcrowded and run a crap and expensive service, and Corbyn essentially put on a skit in a train carriage and pretended it was real (his supporters won't accept that, trotting out the usual denials and saying the 'real issue' is the trains etc, but that's classic dissembling, they'd never be so generous to an opponent who span like that). The former is well known and attacking it will play well, and the latter will only add to the mix of news about Corbyn, and won't rock any of his support until more evidence that, gasp, he is in fact just like other politicians takes hold.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
The vote would of course go through, given that most MPs will want to respect the referendum.
The risk is that some other later vote - for example to repeat the European Community Act - presents itself as a proxy, where opponents of Brexit will now feel so constrained to respect the Referndum if the A50 vote is taken away from them and decided by the PM.
Whatever your view on the underlying issue, this has surely to be a good thing for transparency and accountability.
What she may not have factored in is that betrayal is more keenly felt when you have previously been supportive of the betrayer. See David Cameron, George Osborne and Tony Blair. It could be that in playing to the Tory Leave gallery May is going to end up causing herself very big problems.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN1120QR
And for those thinking that might not happen, because war is a serious matter, recall the ridiculous manoeuvrings of Miliband over the first Syrian vote.
Room for improvement. But early days yet.
Mr. kle4, remember that Labour MPs put Corbyn on the short list for a broad debate. They never thought he'd win.
A vote in Parliament is an opportunity for the referendum result to be overturned.
Mr. W, unless there's a reciprocal agreement for Britons overseas, it's not only a valid position for May to take but a more intelligent and fairer one than flinging guarantees at foreigners who live here whilst throwing only uncertainty at Britons living overseas.
As an aside, I personally support Scottish independence, but I think it's daft that another life-changing question can be answered by a 51/49% vote in which some people may just be not like the UK PM (or may like the Scottish one!).
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Holding a vote would risk opening up all sorts of bandaged sores left over from the recently ended Tory Civil War that ran from 28th November 1990 to 13th July 2016.
If the courts rule against it will inevitably be appealed - it has much more constitutional implications regarding the Royal Prerogative than anything EU related.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords eventually did rule a vote must be hold - after protracted process vai appeal court - It would also allow triangulation - for the PM to present those doing this as anti democratic and to boost the tory vote in general - assuming that a lower court puts an injunction on stopping A50 being called before the appeal - which I suspect they would'nt, in which case she would just go ahead with A50 anyway before any appeal is heart - which would gloriously have lefties jumping up and down in outrage.
We're not a republic and we have a royal prerogative that is currently so pleases the Queen to allow her Prime Minister to use on her behalf. Thats what really sticks in the craw for lefties.
Tommy Robinson and family vs police in a pub
Tommy Robinson
I'm grateful to the pubs security who attempted to intervene & stop @CambsCops from persecuting my family https://t.co/TigDZ1H7Q5
It's one reason that second referendum petition was interesting. Set up by a leaver pre-vote, the thresholds it suggested might not be reasonable (I think it required 75% turnout or something), and of course it would be far too late to apply to any of the referenda we have already had, but there is an argument for some sort of thresholds, either of turnout or approval level. There is a counter that a majority is a majority, fair enough, but it is not unheard of in many countries for referenda or even votes in legislatures to require more than merely a majority.
It seems that the establishment can still be quite Soviet in its dealings with those who really get up their nose.
I remember the mortgage fraud business. Liar loan mortgage fraud was rife at the time, even among Lords but he was the one that got sent to prison for it.
Rather reminds me of countries where corruption is so endemic that giving bribes to public officials is a routine part of life - until the authorities take a dislike to you or want you out of the way for their own purposes and then howl like maiden victorian aunts seeing an uncovered table leg and prosectute you among much fanfare.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
June, I think? And quite a few people took part, as I remember.
Committing parliament to make the decision - or dare to reverse it - seems like it eases some pressure on May personally should things go poorly, so I suppose it comes down to how big a problem would a debate and vote cause in terms or raising issues.
Or as we know it around here .... PB as usual.
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
However, I think this would only be interesting to the opposition if there were some Tory rebels prepared to vote against the government too for whatever reason, and they had a chance of scoring a defeat.
Article 50 refers to the the departing country's constitutional arrangements, so there is an argument that the whole thing should be paused. However, most of the EU seems to want us gone now we have voted that way. So the course of events, if it does get that far, seems unclear to me.
A pleasant day to all thus muggy Sunday.
Lawyers, if not too personally upset by the outcome, must be very happy if they can get in on this sort of thing.
But the starting of the process, the invocation of Article 50, that has already been decided by the people, and the people expect the government to get on with it.
May got that right. But her huge flaw as Prime Minister is already apparent. The shape of Brexit is completely up to her subordinates, in case it goes wrong. Nothing Is Ever Theresa's Fault.
I only watched the first 6ish minutes of that video - but it's clear that there's an agenda totally out of proportion with his influence. Claiming his presence in a pub with his kids would lead to 'public disorder' is beyond laughable.
There's another I've followed for ages - he's been threatened on Twitter by the Met's LGBT group. He doesn't live or work in London... They named family members of his that they were watching! Talk about intimidation. He's reported them to Prof Standards.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
As a pitch to the voters of Great Britain, I would suggest that strategy is.....er......flawed.
They regard the governments joining of the EU as an act of treachery which it has been their duty as subjects of HM to undermine and reverse at all costs because it is replacing the person of Her Majesty supreme Head of the Church and all the institutions and liberties that She represents with a liberal(ish) secular republic.
Its a deeply emotional thing and I suspect has tentacles going back to the restoration after Cromwells death.
There is a huge difference between the two forms of governments. The former sees reward of those who find her majesties (and hence governments) favour with that being a personal decision without let or hindrance from others.
The latter requires scrupulous and bureacratic measures to ensure equality, which tend in day to day practice to be quite obtrusive and often a facade as the backroom machinations decide it and pretend to give a scrupulous front.
In summary, those frustrated that they could not achieve a secular liberal(ish) republic by democratic means (because those running the current system had inserted enough republican characteristics to keep most people happy) saw the EU as a means of realising this republic by deception. Between 1066 and 1939 there would have been one word for that. Treason.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
Just how many Queens do you think we have ?