Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
What do we want?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
Parliament is sovereign here. Parliament passed Article 50 legislation into law in 2008. Parliament passed the Referendum Act in 2015.
Now a clause approved in the 2008 needs to be activated in response to the referendum. That is just government action, no new legislation is required as it has all already been passed.
Indeed. The irony is that "Article 50" is part of the Lisbon Treaty... The same Lisbon Treaty that europhiles conspired over to ensure the British people wouldn't get a say over.
Parliament passed the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament passed the referendum act.
The British people have spoken and now the government has to use the legislation that's already in place to enact he will of the people.
Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
What do we want?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
Parliament is sovereign here. Parliament passed Article 50 legislation into law in 2008. Parliament passed the Referendum Act in 2015.
Now a clause approved in the 2008 needs to be activated in response to the referendum. That is just government action, no new legislation is required as it has all already been passed.
Indeed. The irony is that "Article 50" is part of the Lisbon Treaty... The same Lisbon Treaty that europhiles conspired over to ensure the British people wouldn't get a say over.
Parliament passed the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament passed the referendum act.
The British people have spoke and now the government has to use the legislation that's already in place to enact he will of the people.
It is indeed ironic. Had Labour and the Lib Dems not conspired to pass Lisbon there'd be no existing legislation to trigger.
Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
What do we want?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
Parliament is sovereign here. Parliament passed Article 50 legislation into law in 2008. Parliament passed the Referendum Act in 2015.
Now a clause approved in the 2008 needs to be activated in response to the referendum. That is just government action, no new legislation is required as it has all already been passed.
Indeed. The irony is that "Article 50" is part of the Lisbon Treaty... The same Lisbon Treaty that europhiles conspired over to ensure the British people wouldn't get a say over.
Parliament passed the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament passed the referendum act.
The British people have spoke and now the government has to use the legislation that's already in place to enact he will of the people.
It is indeed ironic. Had Labour and the Lib Dems not conspired to pass Lisbon there'd be no existing legislation to trigger.
Had Labour and the Lib Dems not conspired to pass Lisbon there'd have been much less demand for a referendum in the first place...
But Parliament has already decided, if you believe the Brexit spin on here this morning...
Well, yes, I do think Parliament has decided. The point is we wouldn't be having this conversation if remain had won. That would have been the end of it (okay, not the end of it, but in terms of anything actually happening).
As it happens I hope that the government is forced to have a vote on this just to see who is prepared to vote against the will of the people. It would be very interesting to see which Labour MPs in constituencies that voted leave would dare to vote against triggering Article 50.
@ThreeQuidder The distinction between the words of the executive and the actions of Parliament are clearly lost on you. You appear to be arguing that because the executive has made a confident assertion, Parliament should be bound by it.
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
"The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing." Non sequitur of the year.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Yes, I think that's fair, though I would deliver it by way of an English Parliament which sits in Lancaster.
Lancaster? Why there? Restarting the wars of the Roses doesn't seem a good idea to me. Winchester, the old royal city, would seem a much better place except I quite like it and wouldn't want it spoiled. So I think Birmingham is probably the best location for an English Parliament.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
That is completely back to front. The referendum was not 'window dressing', it was the substantive decision.
I don't think you've ever addressed David Herdson's killer argument: if there were a parliamentary vote, and MPs had a genuine option of voting against leaving the EU, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it wasn't a genuine option, but just a rubber-stamp, that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
Let's say parliament voted, and voted down Article 50.
What then?
Sovereignty reasserted in the UK Parliament? I would expect bunting and street parties from the Brexiteers, right?
So parliament votes to effectively override implementing a democratic national referendum result.
What do you think happens after that?
Either parliament votes to ratify it, in which case its largely pointless although perhaps of symbolic value, or it doesn't, in which case the country is plunged into political crisis.
@ThreeQuidder The distinction between the words of the executive and the actions of Parliament are clearly lost on you. You appear to be arguing that because the executive has made a confident assertion, Parliament should be bound by it.
That was the opening line of the second reading debate. Parliament had plenty of opportunity to amend the Bill before it was enacted had they wanted the referendum to not give the people the final say.
@ThreeQuidder The distinction between the words of the executive and the actions of Parliament are clearly lost on you. You appear to be arguing that because the executive has made a confident assertion, Parliament should be bound by it.
Parliament gave the executive that power in 2008 when it passed Lisbon and to top if off it then passed a Referendum Act in 2015. The executive has the power to exercise clauses of legislation the Parliament has passed, that's the way it works.
@ThreeQuidder The distinction between the words of the executive and the actions of Parliament are clearly lost on you. You appear to be arguing that because the executive has made a confident assertion, Parliament should be bound by it.
The executive in carrying out the wishes of the people has a mandate already granted by Parliament - in that it passed (as did the Lords) the referendum bill. While the bill was for an advisory referendum, that does not change the constitutional issue of Prerogative in treaty obligations.
The legislation of treaties seems specific to the making of new treaties and the taking on of new obligations, and does not affect the prerogative of the Crown acting through the executive.
Therefore the settlement will need to ratified by parliament, but the article 50 issue is not one that should be put before a vote.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
That is completely back to front. The referendum was not 'window dressing', it was the substantive decision.
I don't think you've ever addressed David Herdson's killer argument: if there were a parliamentary vote, and MPs had a genuine option of voting against leaving the EU, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it wasn't a genuine option, but just a rubber-stamp, that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
Beyond that I think she is making a tactical error. Brexit won't be plain sailing. She is missing the opportunity to bind her MPs into whatever course of action her government takes. By saying, I don't trust you to make a decision, she is allowing them to opt out of the joint enterprise.
Same as the debates on military intervention on Syria, Libya, etc. I also agree that it would be wrong and ludicrous for parliament to try to vote down anything Brexit-ish. But Tezza should go through the formality. There are rocky times ahead, as every side agrees, and the currency markets are illustrating. Better to have a parliamentary vote on your side as you sail into the unknown.
Interesting also, @Casino, that you say had Remain won, the issue wouldn't have gone away. All us ex-Remainers are doing is continuing to hold the government to account to ensure we obtain the best deal possible under the circumstances. It was all Nick Herbert was doing yesterday.
Thing is, when you have the three stooges in charge (a position, even with the London Mayorality, they are deeply unused to), no one can rely on them coming to a sane decision.
Oh, I'm perfectly happy with that. That's about advocating what one thinks is right for Britain within the parameters of the democratic instruction that voters have given parliament.
It's gleefully cheering (or, worse, hoping for) any setback the U.K. faces along the way in a desperate desire to be vindicated that gets me.
Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
What do we want?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
I don't know what part you find hard to understand about the legislation that incorporated the Treaty of Lisbon into British law. Parliament voted to adopt Article 50, and at no stage did Parliament indicate that the exercise of Article 50 should be made subject to Parliamentary vote.
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
That is completely back to front. The referendum was not 'window dressing', it was the substantive decision.
I don't think you've ever addressed David Herdson's killer argument: if there were a parliamentary vote, and MPs had a genuine option of voting against leaving the EU, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it wasn't a genuine option, but just a rubber-stamp, that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
I guess the argument against that might be that in a Parliamentary democracy MPs represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted in the referendum. Whether that would cut through the inevitable and understandable outrage of a vote against triggering Article 50 is a different matter entirely.
@ThreeQuidder Parliament had plenty of opportunity to make the referendum legally binding if it wished. It did not.
If it had done, the government would have had no discretion at all about when it triggered Article 50: it would have had to have done so already.
So no, the people were not given the final say.
And that's entirely why it was advisory. Government needed to be able to negotiate certain issues before Art 50 - not with the commission but with other governments. It wisely did not tie itself to an immediate exit.
Politically, the people were given the final say, because the effect of not adhering to the will of the majority is to ask the question then ignore the answer. That's not an anger Parliament wants to unleash, and quite rightly so.
Personally I think that neither a fresh referendum nor a Parliamentary reversal are runners at present - there isn't enough new information. Remainers need to play it long - say yes, in view of the referendum they accept that Article 50 needs to be triggered, and that does start the process to negotiate an exit. However, if the resulting package in two years' time looks bad for Britain and appears to have led to significant popular doubts, that is new information, and Parliament must be asked whether to accept the outcome.
At that point, the Government will say that the choice is the package or a super-hard Brexit with no package at all. However, the reality of the way the EU works is that if Britain has second thoughts then a fudge will be found, suspending the exit process indefinitely. Ministers will struggle to sell the argument "This is admittedly crap but it's the best we could do".
If, of course, a package is negotiated which people feel is really quite good, then of course Brexit proceeds.
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
Deciding against 'consensus' on something with almost no turnout is VERY different to abandoning a prospect that has attracted MORE VOTES THAN ANY SINGLE ISSUE OR PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE UK.
@ThreeQuidder Parliament had plenty of opportunity to make the referendum legally binding if it wished. It did not.
If it had done, the government would have had no discretion at all about when it triggered Article 50: it would have had to have done so already.
So no, the people were not given the final say.
Yes the government could have chosen to ignore the final say of the public by not following through, it hasn't chosen to do so. That's the government's choice and the government has made that choice so now needs to exercise the existing legislation already approved by Parliament to enact the will of the people in the referendum approved by Parliament.
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
If they did something before Article 50 is triggered, and perhaps negotiations are finished, they'd plunge the blues into civil war and give Corbyn a much better chance.
If they do something after we've left or when negotiations are done, there's a much better prospect of success and something approaching peace thereafter.
A stream of rambling crap from Julian Assange speaking to the press conference in Berlin today. There are three "types of history", apparently. Sarah Harrison, having been funded by David Potter, a lifelong member of the "great and good" and a director of the Bank of England,... Got to wonder at how naive some people are.
Russian intelligence own a share in Wikileaks, but only a share.
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
We do not seek to shovel power to the executive. We seek only to point out that it has always had that power and those trying to pretend otherwise are twisting the actualité for their own purposes.
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
You are misusing the term 'advisory referendum'. That doesn't mean it was just an opinion poll, which will be used as an input to decision making. It was made clear throughout the process that this was the public making the decision. Yes, it wasn't immediately legally binding, but that didn't alter the substantial fact that the government, and parliament, delegated the actual decision to voters in the referendum.
@TonyE There is an argument that the executive has for many years had the power at the drop of a hat to plunge the country into a crisis with its closest neighbours that may last decades without needing to consult Parliament.
It's an argument that I do not find particularly compelling.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
That is completely back to front. The referendum was not 'window dressing', it was the substantive decision.
I don't think you've ever addressed David Herdson's killer argument: if there were a parliamentary vote, and MPs had a genuine option of voting against leaving the EU, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it wasn't a genuine option, but just a rubber-stamp, that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
I agree it would be a democratic outrage- particularly so soon after the vote... but still within the right of parliament to do so.
So they shouldn't vote against leaving- but they have the right to if they want.
In much the same way that governments break manifesto commitments from time to time. They shouldn't... and I generally would oppose them doing so... but they can.
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
The executive has the power to execute existing legislation, it has always been so. Article 50 is existing legislation.
Again do you expect a Parliamentary vote to approve every single exercise of Articles 1 - 49?
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
But when parliament passed the Lisbon Treat, without making any amendment to Article 50, Parliament itself handed this particular power to the executive?
They could have made an amendment to the Bill saying A50 can only be triggered with a Parliamentary vote but they didn't.
@ThreeQuidder Parliament had plenty of opportunity to make the referendum legally binding if it wished. It did not.
If it had done, the government would have had no discretion at all about when it triggered Article 50: it would have had to have done so already.
So no, the people were not given the final say.
Yes the government could have chosen to ignore the final say of the public by not following through, it hasn't chosen to do so. That's the government's choice and the government has made that choice so now needs to exercise the existing legislation already approved by Parliament to enact the will of the people in the referendum approved by Parliament.
The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the outcome of the referendum.
What this boils down to is people desperate to stop Brexit trying to find a mechanism to do so, because they don't agree with it.
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
I'm somewhat concerned about the number of Remainers who are anxious to derail the democratic decision of the British public.
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
Is "shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive" a special type of legal speak for "leave things exactly as they are and have been for a very long time" ?
@Richard_Nabavi Either it was advisory or it was not. The advice may have been expressed sufficiently strongly by some giving it that they felt they needed to use a pen to make the point, but it remained advice.
Solar overtaking Coal - pretty incredible when you think that just a few years ago coal was generating 40% of our electricity.
It'll just be the Notts stations (West Burton, Cottam & Ratcliffe) + Drax left soon.
At about this time yesterday coal was producing about 18% of our electricity, though it fell back later in the day. This morning it is shown as producing about 5%. The national grid produces no real-time figures on the production of electricity from solar sources and will only say that it thinks the midday dip on the demand graph is probably down to solar. So I remain sceptical on the claims in the Guardian.
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
You are misusing the term 'advisory referendum'. That doesn't mean it was just an opinion poll, which will be used as an input to decision making. It was made clear throughout the process that this was the public making the decision. Yes, it wasn't immediately legally binding, but that didn't alter the substantial fact that the government, and parliament, delegated the actual decision to voters in the referendum.
@Richard_Nabavi Either it was advisory or it was not. The advice may have been expressed sufficiently strongly by some giving it that they felt they needed to use a pen to make the point, but it remained advice.
And the government is going to use its authority Parliament has given it to execute existing legislation based upon that advice. As no new legislation is needed it's that simple.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
It appears that the question of what Britain's "own constitutional requirements" are being assumed to be executive authority, which begs the basic question: what is the extent of royal prerogative in 2016 in this area?
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
You are misusing the term 'advisory referendum'. That doesn't mean it was just an opinion poll, which will be used as an input to decision making. It was made clear throughout the process that this was the public making the decision. Yes, it wasn't immediately legally binding, but that didn't alter the substantial fact that the government, and parliament, delegated the actual decision to voters in the referendum.
There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
It appears that the question of what Britain's "own constitutional requirements" are being assumed to be executive authority, which begs the basic question: what is the extent of royal prerogative in 2016 in this area?
Royal prerogative is for the government to enact existing Treaties in the way it sees fit to govern, within the confines of those existing Treaties.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
It appears that the question of what Britain's "own constitutional requirements" are being assumed to be executive authority, which begs the basic question: what is the extent of royal prerogative in 2016 in this area?
Would it be reasonable to assume it was the same as it was in 1916 saving any laws that parliament decided to pass to amend it. I know an Act was passed to limit the government's power to declare war, did I miss the one that limited the government's power to conduct foreign relations, enter into and execute treaties ?
''There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people. ''
Where was the Mandate for the Lisbon Treaty? Or all the other myriad secessions of power since 1973?
If you don;t like what May gives you, then join a party that's campaigning to change it.
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
You are misusing the term 'advisory referendum'. That doesn't mean it was just an opinion poll, which will be used as an input to decision making. It was made clear throughout the process that this was the public making the decision. Yes, it wasn't immediately legally binding, but that didn't alter the substantial fact that the government, and parliament, delegated the actual decision to voters in the referendum.
There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people.
That's an entirely different issue. Parliament will need to ratify any new Treaty that we sign at the end of the negotiations. Article 50 isn't about a new negotiation, it is about starting negotiations not ending them.
Everyone ignored the formal question to focus on the politics (just as everyone this morning is assuming that I want to frustrate Brexit: I don't).
I'm not ignoring the formal question I'm answering it. It is the power of the Parliament to pass legislation, it is the power of the executive to execute it.
Article 50 is existing legislation that needs executing. That is the executives job, not Parliaments.
Except the treaty isn't being changed, a single clause in that Treaty is being exercised. The Treaty remains unchanged.
The Treaty is not remaining unchanged. If it remains unchanged, we would be still be members of the EU...
A provision of the Treaty is being exercised. If the Government decided to repeal or amend the legislation enacting the Treaty of Lisbon, then that would be changing the Treaty.
If they give this the green light, asking them is a waste of time. If they give it a red light, then as well as precipitating a constitutional crisis it also means the referendum just held was worthless. So why did Parliament authorise it, if they wish to ignore the result?
It's a tactic of delay and prevarication to try and thwart rather than implement the decision the electorate has taken.
There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people.
That's an unrelated point. There is a clear mandate to leave the EU. We do that by triggering Article 50.
Separately from that, we will enter negotations with our EU friends as to what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be. I don't personally think that that separate matter can meaningfully be decided by referendum, or indeed by parliament, since it is necessarily a highly detailed package involving a complex give-and-take which will have to be hammered out by the negotiating teams in smoke-free rooms. Either way, it's irrelevant to Article 50.
@Mortimer Block capitals do not change the point of principle: who controls the decision, Parliament or the executive? I am somewhat concerned at the number of Leavers who are anxious to shovel as much power as possible into the hands of the executive because on this particular occasion it suits their ardent hopes.
But when parliament passed the Lisbon Treat, without making any amendment to Article 50, Parliament itself handed this particular power to the executive?
They could have made an amendment to the Bill saying A50 can only be triggered with a Parliamentary vote but they didn't.
Which, as the sensible position, I'd expect Mr Meeks (and others) would be arguing - if they were not looking for ways in which to stay in a Union that they can't imagine happily being without.
@Richard_Nabavi If Parliament chose to vote down the use of Article 50, the public would have the option of rectifying the position at the next general election (I expect it might well do so). It was an advisory referendum. If Parliament chooses not to take the public's advice, it can do so.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
You are misusing the term 'advisory referendum'. That doesn't mean it was just an opinion poll, which will be used as an input to decision making. It was made clear throughout the process that this was the public making the decision. Yes, it wasn't immediately legally binding, but that didn't alter the substantial fact that the government, and parliament, delegated the actual decision to voters in the referendum.
There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people.
Too difficult. I don't imagine one voter in five hundred could tell you how a customs union differs from a free trade area, or what WTO stands for. The mandate is to leave the EU, and is satisfied by any arrangement under which we actually leave the EU.
Brexiteers now arguing we should NOT leave the EU. The mental gymnastics are ever more spectacular...
Triggering article 50 does not alter the treaty, at least not immediately. It should also be noted that when other nations left the EFTA and joined the EU, changes were not made to the schedules of the treaties (EEA) for a number of years.
The Schedule to the treaty was not classed as an operative clause, in that intent alone was enough to utilise the working clauses. Had the triggering of Art 50 required an alteration to the actual Articles of the treaty of Rome (Lisbon) then the situation might have been different.
@Philip_Thompson You keep giving an entirely circular answer which consists of: "the government has the power without consulting Parliament because the government has the power". The question being asked is: "does the government have the power - and indeed, if it once did does it still?".
Come back to me when you have something useful to say about that rather than repetitively spamming the same line to take.
Forty years ago, no none explained to the British public why a tariff-free trade grouping need to have uncontrolled immigration. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Why not?
I understand the Europhile feeling for this, but why is it presented as being essential? Not just a good thing, but essential?
I've been to European meetings in Brussels to discuss standardisation and scientific issues. I understand the need for a level playing field (sort of) but the immigration aspect seems more of a social issue than an economic one.
Oh, and the information that the founders made the rules may be true, but why wasn't this spoken about in 1975? And I was more politically aware than most at the time.
If they give this the green light, asking them is a waste of time.
A vote in the UK Parliament is a "waste of time"
I can't understand why the Take Back Control with Sovereignty in the UK Parliament campaign didn't put THAT on a poster...
Do you actually turn your monitor on when you come to PB, or do you just roll your face on the keyboard with the same inanities irrespective of what anyone else writes ?
Triggering article 50 does not alter the treaty, at least not immediately.
But it does alter the treaty. And you don't want Parliament to vote on that.
Despite constitutional convention.
Just as Brexit means "having cake and eating cake" so it apparently means "UK Parliamentary sovereignty, while bypassing UK Parliamentary sovereignty if we feel like it"
I've less entertaining loony Corbynistas in my timeline - I hope Mr Meeks continues to throw his arse about like this. Vapid Bilge is so much funnier 100+ days on.
It was Advisory. But that is not the point at question. This is simply a matter of the constitutional power of prerogative. The reality is that politics often creates imperatives, and in this case it has, no matter what the outcome of the case Parliament will not vote against the government triggering article 50, and any delay in the Lords will meet with fierce resistance.
@Philip_Thompson You keep giving an entirely circular answer which consists of: "the government has the power without consulting Parliament because the government has the power". The question being asked is: "does the government have the power - and indeed, if it once did does it still?".
Come back to me when you have something useful to say about that rather than repetitively spamming the same line to take.
No I'm not saying that, what I have said all thread is that the government has the power because Parliament gave it that power. Parliament passed Lisbon in 2008 which authorised Article 50.
The government has always had the power to exercise existing articles of Treaties, that is a prerogative power and always has been. By passing Lisbon in 2008, Parliament voted to give the executive the power to exercise Article 50. Parliament could have (and possibly should have) put a restriction on that existing power, but it did not.
By Labour in 2008 putting Article 50 onto our statute, the executive was handed the power to exercise Article 50. Parliament did that.
Forty years ago, no none explained to the British public why a tariff-free trade grouping need to have uncontrolled immigration. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Why not?
It wasn't much of an issue, given that the original EEC/EC comprised a set of economies with broadly similar demographics and GDP per head.
Solar overtaking Coal - pretty incredible when you think that just a few years ago coal was generating 40% of our electricity.
It'll just be the Notts stations (West Burton, Cottam & Ratcliffe) + Drax left soon.
At about this time yesterday coal was producing about 18% of our electricity, though it fell back later in the day. This morning it is shown as producing about 5%. The national grid produces no real-time figures on the production of electricity from solar sources and will only say that it thinks the midday dip on the demand graph is probably down to solar. So I remain sceptical on the claims in the Guardian.
This time yesterday, coal was about 3GW out of 35GW! Coal usage peaks around 7-8pm at around 6GW out of 40GW total supply.
There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people.
That's an unrelated point. There is a clear mandate to leave the EU. We do that by triggering Article 50.
Separately from that, we will enter negotations with our EU friends as to what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be. I don't personally think that that separate matter can meaningfully be decided by referendum, or indeed by parliament, since it is necessarily a highly detailed package involving a complex give-and-take which will have to be hammered out by the negotiating teams in smoke-free rooms. Either way, it's irrelevant to Article 50.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
Malta is taking over the rotating presidency in January, so his views on the process in particular are of relevance (his views on the substance are also worth thinking about since he will have some, albeit limited, say in that too).
Comments
Parliament passed the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament passed the referendum act.
The British people have spoken and now the government has to use the legislation that's already in place to enact he will of the people.
https://www.facebook.com/GuyVerhofstadt/posts/10155001346840016
George, Dave, Boris... Possibly eventually Gove will be brought in from the cold too? I wouldn't want that lot plotting against me.
With a cushion of 100 extra MP's behind her it dilutes the power of Osborne, etc...
As it happens I hope that the government is forced to have a vote on this just to see who is prepared to vote against the will of the people. It would be very interesting to see which Labour MPs in constituencies that voted leave would dare to vote against triggering Article 50.
Solar overtaking Coal - pretty incredible when you think that just a few years ago coal was generating 40% of our electricity.
It'll just be the Notts stations (West Burton, Cottam & Ratcliffe) + Drax left soon.
I don't think you've ever addressed David Herdson's killer argument: if there were a parliamentary vote, and MPs had a genuine option of voting against leaving the EU, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it wasn't a genuine option, but just a rubber-stamp, that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
What do you think happens after that?
Either parliament votes to ratify it, in which case its largely pointless although perhaps of symbolic value, or it doesn't, in which case the country is plunged into political crisis.
The legislation of treaties seems specific to the making of new treaties and the taking on of new obligations, and does not affect the prerogative of the Crown acting through the executive.
Therefore the settlement will need to ratified by parliament, but the article 50 issue is not one that should be put before a vote.
If it had done, the government would have had no discretion at all about when it triggered Article 50: it would have had to have done so already.
So no, the people were not given the final say.
Since you're a bad loser who hates the British people for voting against you, your opinion on this can safely be ignored.
It's gleefully cheering (or, worse, hoping for) any setback the U.K. faces along the way in a desperate desire to be vindicated that gets me.
There is in fact very recent precedent for Parliament deciding on mature reflection that it will take the opposite view of the public in a referendum. Next year we will see elected Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, a proposition that was defeated in each city as recently as 2012.
Politically, the people were given the final say, because the effect of not adhering to the will of the majority is to ask the question then ignore the answer. That's not an anger Parliament wants to unleash, and quite rightly so.
At that point, the Government will say that the choice is the package or a super-hard Brexit with no package at all. However, the reality of the way the EU works is that if Britain has second thoughts then a fudge will be found, suspending the exit process indefinitely. Ministers will struggle to sell the argument "This is admittedly crap but it's the best we could do".
If, of course, a package is negotiated which people feel is really quite good, then of course Brexit proceeds.
For pete's sake Alastair, we're leaving.
Don;t discourage him, its too entertaining.
If they did something before Article 50 is triggered, and perhaps negotiations are finished, they'd plunge the blues into civil war and give Corbyn a much better chance.
If they do something after we've left or when negotiations are done, there's a much better prospect of success and something approaching peace thereafter.
Russian intelligence own a share in Wikileaks, but only a share.
That's all I'll say.
Today at any rate. Tomorrow, who knows...
It's an argument that I do not find particularly compelling.
This statement is entirely contrary to the constitutional principles that have evolved in the last century on major changes to international treaties.
So they shouldn't vote against leaving- but they have the right to if they want.
In much the same way that governments break manifesto commitments from time to time.
They shouldn't... and I generally would oppose them doing so... but they can.
Again do you expect a Parliamentary vote to approve every single exercise of Articles 1 - 49?
They could have made an amendment to the Bill saying A50 can only be triggered with a Parliamentary vote but they didn't.
What this boils down to is people desperate to stop Brexit trying to find a mechanism to do so, because they don't agree with it.
Do you expect a Parliamentary vote every single time Articles 1 - 49 are exercised?
It's what you have been arguing for. And now you don't want it in case you don't like the answer.
Not even SeanT on his worst day has flip-flopped as badly the Brexiteers this morning.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
It appears that the question of what Britain's "own constitutional requirements" are being assumed to be executive authority, which begs the basic question: what is the extent of royal prerogative in 2016 in this area?
Brexiteers now arguing we should NOT leave the EU. The mental gymnastics are ever more spectacular...
Where was the Mandate for the Lisbon Treaty? Or all the other myriad secessions of power since 1973?
If you don;t like what May gives you, then join a party that's campaigning to change it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/21/in-safe-hands-whose-finger-is-on-the-article-50-button/
Everyone ignored the formal question to focus on the politics (just as everyone this morning is assuming that I want to frustrate Brexit: I don't).
Article 50 is existing legislation that needs executing. That is the executives job, not Parliaments.
Clinton 46
Trump 40
Johnson 9
Stein 3
https://t.co/zqoZZNVER2
If they give this the green light, asking them is a waste of time. If they give it a red light, then as well as precipitating a constitutional crisis it also means the referendum just held was worthless. So why did Parliament authorise it, if they wish to ignore the result?
It's a tactic of delay and prevarication to try and thwart rather than implement the decision the electorate has taken.
Separately from that, we will enter negotations with our EU friends as to what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be. I don't personally think that that separate matter can meaningfully be decided by referendum, or indeed by parliament, since it is necessarily a highly detailed package involving a complex give-and-take which will have to be hammered out by the negotiating teams in smoke-free rooms. Either way, it's irrelevant to Article 50.
The Schedule to the treaty was not classed as an operative clause, in that intent alone was enough to utilise the working clauses. Had the triggering of Art 50 required an alteration to the actual Articles of the treaty of Rome (Lisbon) then the situation might have been different.
I can't understand why the Take Back Control with Sovereignty in the UK Parliament campaign didn't put THAT on a poster...
By the way, your email that you mentioned yesterday has not arrived.
Come back to me when you have something useful to say about that rather than repetitively spamming the same line to take.
And it wasn't.
Forty years ago, no none explained to the British public why a tariff-free trade grouping need to have uncontrolled immigration. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Why not?
I understand the Europhile feeling for this, but why is it presented as being essential? Not just a good thing, but essential?
I've been to European meetings in Brussels to discuss standardisation and scientific issues. I understand the need for a level playing field (sort of) but the immigration aspect seems more of a social issue than an economic one.
Oh, and the information that the founders made the rules may be true, but why wasn't this spoken about in 1975? And I was more politically aware than most at the time.
Despite constitutional convention.
Just as Brexit means "having cake and eating cake" so it apparently means "UK Parliamentary sovereignty, while bypassing UK Parliamentary sovereignty if we feel like it"
Awesome.
The government has always had the power to exercise existing articles of Treaties, that is a prerogative power and always has been. By passing Lisbon in 2008, Parliament voted to give the executive the power to exercise Article 50. Parliament could have (and possibly should have) put a restriction on that existing power, but it did not.
By Labour in 2008 putting Article 50 onto our statute, the executive was handed the power to exercise Article 50. Parliament did that.
http://www.politico.eu/article/malta-pm-joseph-muscat-brexit-talks-will-be-like-the-greek-bailout/
Malta is taking over the rotating presidency in January, so his views on the process in particular are of relevance (his views on the substance are also worth thinking about since he will have some, albeit limited, say in that too).