I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
Yes, but it depends whether it's a Bill, as you suggest, or merely an indicative vote. If it's a Bill, the Government's problem is the amendments that will be made. There will be months of haggling and I'd expect some decidedly awkward amendments to pass. I think May will try to get away with an indicative vote but I'm not clear if that's consistent with the court ruling.
Not guaranteed to get through the Commons, but very unlikely to pass the Lords. Which means a year of delay with the Parliament Act or a fresh election (after repealing the nonsensical Fixed Term Act).
The idea that the will of the majority of the British people could be thwarted by a rag-tag bunch of bishops, fops and political has-beens and never-wases is a total disgrace.
Time to shut down the House of Lords, once and for all.
Our system - which is based on rule of law, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, not random plebiscites - has decided that the government's case is too weak.
This will be appealed, and as it happens I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this decision (because I think the government will come up with a better case).
But if not, there will be an election and of course Brexit will be validated across the country. Labour will be decimated and May will get a very generous majority to continue on the course she has started.
The demented comments on here about "judicial meddling" and abolishing the House of Lords seem to from those who'd actually prefer some kind of authoritarian rule. Unsurprisingly it's from the same folk ramping Trump.
Random plebiscites. What a load of tosh.
You mean the referendum that was:
a) promised in the manifesto of the majority party in our most recent election b) authorised by a vote in parliament.
And c) voted in by more than any election in the history of this country.
Our system - which is based on rule of law, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, not random plebiscites - has decided that the government's case is too weak.
This will be appealed, and as it happens I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this decision (because I think the government will come up with a better case).
But if not, there will be an election and of course Brexit will be validated across the country. Labour will be decimated and May will get a very generous majority to continue on the course she has started.
The demented comments on here about "judicial meddling" and abolishing the House of Lords seem to from those who'd actually prefer some kind of authoritarian rule. Unsurprisingly it's from the same folk ramping Trump.
We could declare war on the EU without a parliamentary vote just fine.
I think that may have the effect of leaving.
None of this stuff is clear, don't believe a man who says it is.
Don't believe I've said anything about parliamentary sovereignty, had nothing to do with my vote.
Some people seem to completely misunderstand the sovereignty argument re: the EU. It has nothing to do with loving Westminster over the EU parliament, but the fact the people making the decisions are increasingly beyond the ability of ordinary people to remove.
strange how a lot of the people who are attacking the idea of the HoL being allowed to vote against A50 if they so choose are the same people who oppose constitutional reform and an elected HoL. Somebody (mr Meeks perhaps) might like to give an opinion on use of the Parliament Act, given that holding a referendum was in the Tory manifesto, but not leaving the EU, and that the referendum was advisory, not binding.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
Agreed.
Agreed on the asap, but if I were May, I would not mention a general election (which is pretty well a given anyway). Put Labour on the spot on whether they support A50 or not; refuse any amendments; don't allow them to muddy the water.
I thought it was established constitutional law that a resolution of the House of Commons does not have the force of law. So will be interesting to see the detailed judicial argument. An Act of Parliament is of course required to repeal the European Communities Act.
In light of today's Court decision Betfair's Article 50 - Not triggered before July 2017 market looks an interesting back at 2.48 (2.406 net), where just now there was > £1000 available at these odds.
Our system - which is based on rule of law, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, not random plebiscites - has decided that the government's case is too weak.
This will be appealed, and as it happens I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this decision (because I think the government will come up with a better case).
But if not, there will be an election and of course Brexit will be validated across the country. Labour will be decimated and May will get a very generous majority to continue on the course she has started.
The demented comments on here about "judicial meddling" and abolishing the House of Lords seem to from those who'd actually prefer some kind of authoritarian rule. Unsurprisingly it's from the same folk ramping Trump.
Random plebiscites. What a load of tosh.
You mean the referendum that was:
a) promised in the manifesto of the majority party in our most recent election b) authorised by a vote in parliament.
And c) voted in by more than any election in the history of this country.
Yep. Random in its design, and unpredictable in its result.
Hence we are left in some kind of constitutional halfway house. Not comfortable for anyone. But let's now give due process the chance to tidy things up.
A debate in Parliament is perfectly reasonable. Also means the Government will have to give more details as to what sort of Brexit they are proposing, and whether that is something that can be voted for by parliament.
strange how a lot of the people who are attacking the idea of the HoL being allowed to vote against A50 if they so choose are the same people who oppose constitutional reform and an elected HoL. Somebody (mr Meeks perhaps) might like to give an opinion on use of the Parliament Act, given that holding a referendum was in the Tory manifesto, but not leaving the EU, and that the referendum was advisory, not binding.
Now I'm not one normally to b on the hard left on an issue, but I think the House of Lords should be scrapped, utterly ridiculous we have 800 unelected Peers "lording" it over us.
Total waste of money.
I also think the Brexit decision should not be kicked into the long grass. May should get up and just tell everyone that the referendum was purely advisory and we're staying IN !
strange how a lot of the people who are attacking the idea of the HoL being allowed to vote against A50 if they so choose are the same people who oppose constitutional reform and an elected HoL. Somebody (mr Meeks perhaps) might like to give an opinion on use of the Parliament Act, given that holding a referendum was in the Tory manifesto, but not leaving the EU, and that the referendum was advisory, not binding.
Now I'm not one normally to b on the hard left on an issue, but I think the House of Lords should be scrapped, utterly ridiculous we have 800 unelected Peers "lording" it over us.
Total waste of money.
I also think the Brexit decision should not be kicked into the long grass. May should get up and just tell everyone that the referendum was purely advisory and we're staying IN !
A debate in Parliament is perfectly reasonable. Also means the Government will have to give more details as to what sort of Brexit they are proposing, and whether that is something that can be voted for by parliament.
I'm sure Juncker et al will be thrilled.
I am VERY surprised at this decision, and fully expect it to be reversed in the SC.
strange how a lot of the people who are attacking the idea of the HoL being allowed to vote against A50 if they so choose are the same people who oppose constitutional reform and an elected HoL. Somebody (mr Meeks perhaps) might like to give an opinion on use of the Parliament Act, given that holding a referendum was in the Tory manifesto, but not leaving the EU, and that the referendum was advisory, not binding.
Now I'm not one normally to b on the hard left on an issue, but I think the House of Lords should be scrapped, utterly ridiculous we have 800 unelected Peers "lording" it over us.
Total waste of money.
I also think the Brexit decision should not be kicked into the long grass. May should get up and just tell everyone that the referendum was purely advisory and we're staying IN !
strange how a lot of the people who are attacking the idea of the HoL being allowed to vote against A50 if they so choose are the same people who oppose constitutional reform and an elected HoL. Somebody (mr Meeks perhaps) might like to give an opinion on use of the Parliament Act, given that holding a referendum was in the Tory manifesto, but not leaving the EU, and that the referendum was advisory, not binding.
You're confusing two separate parts of the British constitution.
Under the Salisbury Convention (which the Lib Dems reject) the House of Lords does not vote down manifesto commitments when they come to the Lords.
Under the Parliament Act, any bill may receive Royal Assent without the approval of the House of Lords, although the timetable differs depending on whether the bill is a money bill or not.
I'm perfectly happy for Parliament to have a veto but we have to remember how toxic all this could be. Yu have 56 SNP MPs on one side having won 4.7% of the vote whilst Ukip on the other side have 1 MP with 12.7% of the vote. That's before you get onto the bizarre situation of the Lords - nearly 1000 of them, totally unaccountable to the public.
Stunned at the High Court decision. Fully expected the Govt to win. It was obviously going to the SC either way, but this is a surprise. I look forward to the chance to read the judgment later! Feels at odds with the Belfast HIgh Court decision the other way, although I haven't got round to reading that judgment either...
I still reckon it could get referred off to the ECJ...
In light of today's Court Decision, Betfair's Article 50 -Not triggered before July 2017 market looks an interesting back at around 2.2, ten minutes ago was 2.5 incidentally! DYOR.
An absurd statement if you think about it. The government allegedly has a majority. The court has ruled the government must refer the issue to a parliamentary vote.
In saying "waaah we already have permission" the government are clearly demonstrating that they know they don't have the majority to get a simple A50 vote through. As I keep saying they are an effective minority government.
So Theresa. No working majority. A cabal of morons on your benches causing you problems. Major constitutional change to get through. A clown as leader of the opposition giving you a poll lead of landslide proportions.
You could have avoided all this by announcing a general election vote in your conference speech. But you didn't. Cos you're Frit. Even if she does get a 100 majority I don't hold out any home that Mrs Wobble can get any kind of viable deal from the EU.
very strong services PMI figures out today, 54.5 vs 52.6 last month and expectations of 52.5, our industries seem to be giving Brexit a collective shrug of their shoulders right now.
Plugging the figures into my own model we're looking at October growth of 0.2-0.3% for the month, quarterly growth should be around 0.7% if the figures hold. Would give annual growth of 2.3% for the year. I still don't see what kind of slowdown we might get in 2017, even after A50 is served the domestic economy is not going to change all that much.
I'm more pessimistic on 2017, largely on the back of the BoE credit survey which shows unsecured consumer spending rising, and investment spending declining.
Stunned at the High Court decision. Fully expected the Govt to win. It was obviously going to the SC either way, but this is a surprise. I look forward to the chance to read the judgment later!
I still reckon it could get referred off to the ECJ...
Y'all shoulda listened to Mr Meeks (and some of the blogging and tweeting constitutional lawyers).
An absurd statement if you think about it. The government allegedly has a majority. The court has ruled the government must refer the issue to a parliamentary vote.
In saying "waaah we already have permission" the government are clearly demonstrating that they know they don't have the majority to get a simple A50 vote through. As I keep saying they are an effective minority government.
It's more than that. They're playing for time over Brexit.
Didn't see that coming - but pleased with result. For me the worst aspect of the referendum was how id divided the country and legitimised nationalist and racist sentiment. Theresa May hadn't begun to address this, taking bluntly of supporting the 52% and expecting the rest to live with it - this will force her to take seriously uniting the country.
Can't see parliament voting down A50 after the referendum, but Govt will have to take into account wider interests now, a very good thing in my view.
Maybe that Titanic reference was about right?
"Expecting the the rest to live with it" that's called democracy son, majority rule, just like I had to to live with Blair as PM for ten years, the people have spoken whether you agree with them or not.
But during those ten years it was perfectly acceptable for others to attack and criticise Blair's actions. Many Leavers seem to that after their narrow victory everyone has to shut up and meekly go along with it, anything else is subverting the "will of the people". It's cobblers - people who believe Brexit will be a huge mistake have every right (in fact duty) to attack it right up to the point it happens and beyond.
Would Farage, Bill Cash etc meekly have accepted a 3% defeat as "the will of the people" and left it that? Would the UKIP MEPs have ceased haranguing the EU Parliament once it had been proved that the "will of the people" was that we stayed in the EU?
The court ruling is a red herring and largely about May's seemingly erroneous assertion that she had the right to trigger A50 herself. Nobody seriously doubts that Parliament will block A50. It's just another excuse for the drama queens amongst the Leavers to bang on about the "will of the people" with faux outrage.
As an aside, this will play strongly into the meme that the posh people always get their way and aren't bothered about democracy. As that's a big reason for the Labour Party's popularity in the North, it will be a tricky position for them.
Come on, Andy Burnham. Stop crying and make your position clear.
In light of today's Court Decision, Betfair's Article 50 -Not triggered before July 2017 market looks an interesting back at around 2.2, ten minutes ago was 2.5 incidentally! DYOR.
IANAL, but the reasoning of the judgement does look very strange to me:
In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect
I don't think that is right. For a start, triggering Article 50 won't change domestic law or repeal the 1972 Act. It will make it obsolete, and parliament will have to clean up the legal position afterwards, but that is a different point. And secondly, the Lisbon Treaty - which by m'luds reasoning was implicitly authorised by parliament in 1972 - include the very provision we are talking about. So how can triggering it not already be authorised by parliament?
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Sporting's POTUS markets remain closed again this morning, doubtless awaiting the latest batch of polls to start feeding through from the US in 2 - 3 hours time.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Why do you persist in thinking that Brexit is a fundamental national interest that should be protected from the slings and arrows of due process?
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak!
Theresa Delay is going to keep punting this down the line as long as she can. There doesn't need to be an appeal, just accept the verdict and pass a simple bill giving them the right to declare A50. If either Hoc or Hol votes it down, GE triggered by either mass vote of no confidence or repealing the FTPA. Go to country and get your brexit mandate. The fact that she isn't doing this is very suspect.
May should: 1. Say this is an attempt to subvert democracy. 2. Confirm that the vote needs to take place in parliament before Article 50 is triggered 3. Recognise that this means we need a GE immediately 4. Force a vote of no confidence and thus get round the FTPA - election in January 5. Put 'Brexit means Brexit' at the heart of the Tory manifesto and demand all Tory candidates sign up for this - the GE would become a new referendum effectively. 6. Tell UKIP voters and all those who value our democracy that they should vote Tory - and get a whopping majority. It'd become the people vs the establishment, with Tories on the people's side and assorted lefties and establishment types doing their usual weasel act on the other. 7. First vote of the new parliament is to approve A50.
May should: 1. Say this is an attempt to subvert democracy. 2. Confirm that the vote needs to take place in parliament before Article 50 is triggered 3. Recognise that this means we need a GE immediately 4. Force a vote of no confidence and thus get round the FTPA - election in January 5. Put 'Brexit means Brexit' at the heart of the Tory manifesto and demand all Tory candidates sign up for this - the GE would become a new referendum effectively. 6. Tell UKIP voters and all those who value our democracy that they should vote Tory - and get a whopping majority. It'd become the people vs the establishment, with Tories on the people's side and assorted lefties and establishment types doing their usual weasel act on the other. 7. First vote of the new parliament is to approve A50.
I'm perfectly happy for Parliament to have a veto but we have to remember how toxic all this could be. Yu have 56 SNP MPs on one side having won 4.7% of the vote whilst Ukip on the other side have 1 MP with 12.7% of the vote. That's before you get onto the bizarre situation of the Lords - nearly 1000 of them, totally unaccountable to the public.
All very true but the Tories, including the Brexiteers, still support FPTP and blocked Lords reform in last parliament, so can't complain if that is what thwarts them now.
Not guaranteed to get through the Commons, but very unlikely to pass the Lords. Which means a year of delay with the Parliament Act or a fresh election (after repealing the nonsensical Fixed Term Act).
The idea that the will of the majority of the British people could be thwarted by a rag-tag bunch of bishops, fops and political has-beens and never-wases is a total disgrace.
Time to shut down the House of Lords, once and for all.
I'm not sure the HoL would vote it down if it comes to it.
There are currently 255 Con peers vs. 206 Lab and 104 LD. However, there are also 182 crossbenchers and 25 non-affiliated. I think enough of the crossbenchers would back the government for a bill to pass, particularly if noises were made about a fresh election and HOL reform.
Even some of the Lab peers might baulk at voting it down as the optics would terrible (e.g. unelected Lord Kinnock wants to block the will of the British people to save his EU pension)
Anyone know how long the whole appeal process to the Supreme Court is likely to take before we get a decision ..... 3 months, 6 months, longer? I'm thinking in terms of the possible betting opportunity referred to below.
very strong services PMI figures out today, 54.5 vs 52.6 last month and expectations of 52.5, our industries seem to be giving Brexit a collective shrug of their shoulders right now.
Plugging the figures into my own model we're looking at October growth of 0.2-0.3% for the month, quarterly growth should be around 0.7% if the figures hold. Would give annual growth of 2.3% for the year. I still don't see what kind of slowdown we might get in 2017, even after A50 is served the domestic economy is not going to change all that much.
I'm more pessimistic on 2017, largely on the back of the BoE credit survey which shows unsecured consumer spending rising, and investment spending declining.
Hmm, I'm sure the survey showed that lending to small and medium businesses was growing again, albeit from a low base.
High Court ruling likely to be germane to the forthcoming appeal on the Northern Ireland Article 50 decision.
Brexit is heading into the long grass.
This period may look like an extended interregnum before the return of Osborne and the abandonment of Brexit.
Yes, that's a plausible scenario. I can see the legal quagmire becoming so overwhelming that the Article 50 lark stalls and collapses in a heap. Her government in paralysis, May will have to resign in ignominy, which could certainly pave the way for the return of Osborne as a figure of national unity. EU membership will then be renegotiated, probably with Dave's Deal dusted down and used as a template.
Anyone know how long the whole appeal process to the Supreme Court is likely to take before we get a decision ..... 3 months, 6 months, longer? I'm thinking in terms of the possible betting opportunity referred to below.
No rush. I'd advise m'luds to put the kettle on and think it over in a few (hundred) rounds of golf.
I think the government should get started on the Parliamentary route in case the appeal is lost. If they start now there is a decent shot at making June 2017 for the trigger date, if they start in December then it's unlikely.
As much as a dislike the royal prerogative I wonder how much it matters. If parliament doesn't like the government they should get rid of it. How hard would a no confidence motion be? Even under the FTPA we'd still get an election within a couple of weeks.
Anyone know how long the whole appeal process to the Supreme Court is likely to take before we get a decision ..... 3 months, 6 months, longer? I'm thinking in terms of the possible betting opportunity referred to below.
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak!
If you think it was just people on zimmer frames who voted for Brexit in places like Sunderland and Hartlepool your deluded.
Anyone know how long the whole appeal process to the Supreme Court is likely to take before we get a decision ..... 3 months, 6 months, longer? I'm thinking in terms of the possible betting opportunity referred to below.
They've asked for it to be fast tracked, and I believe the SC expected an appeal on it regardless of outcome, so it'd be Dec/Jan I think.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Why do you persist in thinking that Brexit is a fundamental national interest that should be protected from the slings and arrows of due process?
Anyone know how long the whole appeal process to the Supreme Court is likely to take before we get a decision ..... 3 months, 6 months, longer? I'm thinking in terms of the possible betting opportunity referred to below.
Why would the appeal to the Supreme Court get bogged down? The High Court case took only a couple of months at most so presumably the SUpreme Court case would take a similar length.
7th/8th of Dec (I think) are the scheduled hearing dates
I'm perfectly happy for Parliament to have a veto but we have to remember how toxic all this could be. Yu have 56 SNP MPs on one side having won 4.7% of the vote whilst Ukip on the other side have 1 MP with 12.7% of the vote. That's before you get onto the bizarre situation of the Lords - nearly 1000 of them, totally unaccountable to the public.
Indeed. We could be heading for a 1910/11 style constitutional upheaval.
The Govt is wary, in my view, as it thinks on the bare figures taking into account the Ken Clarke's etc the vote could be tight. If it loses we must surely be off into General Election territory (Corbyn can surely hardly refuse to facilitate getting round the FTPA or he'll look like he's running from the chance of being PM).
So one assumes there will be a lot of Labour MP's squirming around the calculation of "is it better to vote to Remain as I really want to, at the risk of getting buried in an election where Corbyn is miles behind in the polls, and going (in most cases) against the constituents' direct vote?" For diehard Tory Remainers voting against Article 50, surely the reselection committee and "ladies with blue hair", await. A fate worse than death that one, one imagines.
I suspect the Govt would get it through though, once the chips are down.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Why do you persist in thinking that Brexit is a fundamental national interest that should be protected from the slings and arrows of due process?
17m voters.
Who were told Turkey would be joining the EU, among other deceits. Our national interests aren't determined by a fickle mob but are enduring truths.
What May should do is go ahead and send the Article 50 notification, then let everybody argue about whether it counts. She looks bold and determined and brexitty, and everyone has wiggle room to say it didn't count if they can't get it done in 2 years or they decide the whole thing was a stupid idea in the first place.
I think the government should get started on the Parliamentary route in case the appeal is lost. If they start now there is a decent shot at making June 2017 for the trigger date, if they start in December then it's unlikely.
They should never have even gotten into this position. Irrespective of whether it was necessary or not, the Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been tabled and passed immediately following the referendum result.
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak!
If you think it was just people on zimmer frames who voted for Brexit in places like Sunderland and Hartlepool your deluded.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Why do you persist in thinking that Brexit is a fundamental national interest that should be protected from the slings and arrows of due process?
17m voters.
Who were told Turkey would be joining the EU, among other deceits. Our national interests aren't determined by a fickle mob but are enduring truths.
Still 17m voters. The government will deliver the popular mandate or it will fall to something much worse.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Why do you persist in thinking that Brexit is a fundamental national interest that should be protected from the slings and arrows of due process?
17m voters.
Who were told Turkey would be joining the EU, among other deceits. Our national interests aren't determined by a fickle mob but are enduring truths.
Yes the enduring truth is European politicians want to create a USE, that is crystal clear. And I will fight to my dying breath to stop us being dragged in.
May should: 1. Say this is an attempt to subvert democracy. 2. Confirm that the vote needs to take place in parliament before Article 50 is triggered 3. Recognise that this means we need a GE immediately 4. Force a vote of no confidence and thus get round the FTPA - election in January 5. Put 'Brexit means Brexit' at the heart of the Tory manifesto and demand all Tory candidates sign up for this - the GE would become a new referendum effectively. 6. Tell UKIP voters and all those who value our democracy that they should vote Tory - and get a whopping majority. It'd become the people vs the establishment, with Tories on the people's side and assorted lefties and establishment types doing their usual weasel act on the other. 7. First vote of the new parliament is to approve A50.
Stop panicking.
The government would pass an Article 50 Enabling bill 600 to 50 tomorrow. The Lords wouldn't stop it, and even if they did, the government could always create 100 peers.
The fact is that the legal case, as Jack of Kent wrote about, was always likely to succeed.
The error was the government not passing a Bill on Referendum + 1 day.
What May should do is go ahead and send the Article 50 notification, then let everybody argue about whether it counts. She looks bold and determined and brexitty, and everyone has wiggle room to say it didn't count if they can't get it done in 2 years or they decide the whole thing was a stupid idea in the first place.
Would the EU still be able to accept the activation of article 50 under present circumstances?
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak!
If you think it was just people on zimmer frames who voted for Brexit in places like Sunderland and Hartlepool your deluded.
Brexit's vote was strongest amongst the over 70s
Of course. But there were plenty of younger people supporting it as well...
I also think the Brexit decision should not be kicked into the long grass. May should get up and just tell everyone that the referendum was purely advisory and we're staying IN !
May would blow up the Conservative Party if she did that.
I think the government should get started on the Parliamentary route in case the appeal is lost. If they start now there is a decent shot at making June 2017 for the trigger date, if they start in December then it's unlikely.
They should never have even gotten into this position. Irrespective of whether it was necessary or not, the Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been tabled and passed immediately following the referendum result.
Yes, absolutely. As soon as May won the leadership election she should have tabled the bill and geared up for a fight with the Lords.
But UKIP leadership elections are effectively a Catch-22. In order to win (or aim to win) you must be certifiably insane. But if you are truly insane, you are won't be a successful UKIP leader.
Only Nigel ever had the genius to unlock that conundrum.
I don't believe there's the slightest chance MPs (or peers) would vote to block Brexit at this stage. Surely this is all about minimising open parliamentary scrutiny of the process, because Theresa May is already finding it difficult enough to handle her own party behind closed doors.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
The Article 50 Enabling Bill should have been published and passed immediately following the referendum.
Why do you persist in thinking that Brexit is a fundamental national interest that should be protected from the slings and arrows of due process?
17m voters.
Who were told Turkey would be joining the EU, among other deceits. Our national interests aren't determined by a fickle mob but are enduring truths.
Still 17m voters. The government will deliver the popular mandate or it will fall to something much worse.
IANAL, but the reasoning of the judgement does look very strange to me:
In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect
I don't think that is right. For a start, triggering Article 50 won't change domestic law or repeal the 1972 Act. It will make it obsolete, and parliament will have to clean up the legal position afterwards, but that is a different point. And secondly, the Lisbon Treaty - which by m'luds reasoning was implicitly authorised by parliament in 1972 - include the very provision we are talking about. So how can triggering it not already be authorised by parliament?
I think its that by leaving the EU, UK citizens loose access to the CJEU - 93.(7) of the full ruling, and that is a loss of domestic rights that does happen due to Article 50 triggering..
High Court ruling likely to be germane to the forthcoming appeal on the Northern Ireland Article 50 decision.
Brexit is heading into the long grass.
This period may look like an extended interregnum before the return of Osborne and the abandonment of Brexit.
Yes, that's a plausible scenario. I can see the legal quagmire becoming so overwhelming that the Article 50 lark stalls and collapses in a heap. Her government in paralysis, May will have to resign in ignominy, which could certainly pave the way for the return of Osborne as a figure of national unity. EU membership will then be renegotiated, probably with Dave's Deal dusted down and used as a template.
That would send an example to other countries that you can vote to leave to stay on a better deal. I think the EU just wants us out quickly at this point, not another 20 years of unhappy marriage with us.
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak!
If you think it was just people on zimmer frames who voted for Brexit in places like Sunderland and Hartlepool your deluded.
Brexit's vote was strongest amongst the over 70s
Of course. But there were plenty of younger people supporting it as well...
Most people in their forties and fifties voted for Brexit, as well as the pensioners. 42 was the age at which supporters of Brexit began to outnumber opponents.
5. Put 'Brexit means Brexit' at the heart of the Tory manifesto
At least a blank sheet of paper will be more honest than the usual manifestos.
They should put a blank piece of paper in the manifesto and ask voters to fill in a plan and send it back. It's the voters who wanted to do this, let them figure it out.
Comments
"The Kippers are fading anyway, partly due to their ridiculous parade of party leaders."
True.
But I may have to vote Kipper at the next GE now, even if Satan is the party leader. It will be a matter of principle.
As it happens, if it comes to a vote, the HoC will vote for Article 50. So it is all a pointless exercise.
Brexit is heading into the long grass.
Mr. Pioneers, ah, cheers.
Time to shut down the House of Lords, once and for all.
You mean the referendum that was:
a) promised in the manifesto of the majority party in our most recent election
b) authorised by a vote in parliament.
And c) voted in by more than any election in the history of this country.
I think that may have the effect of leaving.
None of this stuff is clear, don't believe a man who says it is.
Some people seem to completely misunderstand the sovereignty argument re: the EU. It has nothing to do with loving Westminster over the EU parliament, but the fact the people making the decisions are increasingly beyond the ability of ordinary people to remove.
Somebody (mr Meeks perhaps) might like to give an opinion on use of the Parliament Act, given that holding a referendum was in the Tory manifesto, but not leaving the EU, and that the referendum was advisory, not binding.
In light of today's Court decision Betfair's Article 50 - Not triggered before July 2017 market looks an interesting back at 2.48 (2.406 net), where just now there was > £1000 available at these odds.
DYOR
Hence we are left in some kind of constitutional halfway house. Not comfortable for anyone. But let's now give due process the chance to tidy things up.
Total waste of money.
I also think the Brexit decision should not be kicked into the long grass. May should get up and just tell everyone that the referendum was purely advisory and we're staying IN !
I am VERY surprised at this decision, and fully expect it to be reversed in the SC.
Under the Salisbury Convention (which the Lib Dems reject) the House of Lords does not vote down manifesto commitments when they come to the Lords.
Under the Parliament Act, any bill may receive Royal Assent without the approval of the House of Lords, although the timetable differs depending on whether the bill is a money bill or not.
I still reckon it could get referred off to the ECJ...
DYOR.
In saying "waaah we already have permission" the government are clearly demonstrating that they know they don't have the majority to get a simple A50 vote through. As I keep saying they are an effective minority government.
So Theresa. No working majority. A cabal of morons on your benches causing you problems. Major constitutional change to get through. A clown as leader of the opposition giving you a poll lead of landslide proportions.
You could have avoided all this by announcing a general election vote in your conference speech. But you didn't. Cos you're Frit. Even if she does get a 100 majority I don't hold out any home that Mrs Wobble can get any kind of viable deal from the EU.
But I do think the SC will overturn.
Would Farage, Bill Cash etc meekly have accepted a 3% defeat as "the will of the people" and left it that? Would the UKIP MEPs have ceased haranguing the EU Parliament once it had been proved that the "will of the people" was that we stayed in the EU?
The court ruling is a red herring and largely about May's seemingly erroneous assertion that she had the right to trigger A50 herself. Nobody seriously doubts that Parliament will block A50. It's just another excuse for the drama queens amongst the Leavers to bang on about the "will of the people" with faux outrage.
Come on, Andy Burnham. Stop crying and make your position clear.
At 2.5 I'd have put on maybe 40 or 50.
In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect
I don't think that is right. For a start, triggering Article 50 won't change domestic law or repeal the 1972 Act. It will make it obsolete, and parliament will have to clean up the legal position afterwards, but that is a different point. And secondly, the Lisbon Treaty - which by m'luds reasoning was implicitly authorised by parliament in 1972 - include the very provision we are talking about. So how can triggering it not already be authorised by parliament?
They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak!
1. Say this is an attempt to subvert democracy.
2. Confirm that the vote needs to take place in parliament before Article 50 is triggered
3. Recognise that this means we need a GE immediately
4. Force a vote of no confidence and thus get round the FTPA - election in January
5. Put 'Brexit means Brexit' at the heart of the Tory manifesto and demand all Tory candidates sign up for this - the GE would become a new referendum effectively.
6. Tell UKIP voters and all those who value our democracy that they should vote Tory - and get a whopping majority. It'd become the people vs the establishment, with Tories on the people's side and assorted lefties and establishment types doing their usual weasel act on the other.
7. First vote of the new parliament is to approve A50.
Or shall we just kill all the lawyers?
"They'll be oiling up their zimmer frames as we speak."
Mine is on turbo boost! But they vote in numbers and that's what counts.
There are currently 255 Con peers vs. 206 Lab and 104 LD. However, there are also 182 crossbenchers and 25 non-affiliated. I think enough of the crossbenchers would back the government for a bill to pass, particularly if noises were made about a fresh election and HOL reform.
Even some of the Lab peers might baulk at voting it down as the optics would terrible (e.g. unelected Lord Kinnock wants to block the will of the British people to save his EU pension)
https://morningconsult.com/2016/11/03/shy-trump-social-desirability-undercover-voter-study/
I hope those Labour MP's who laughed and barracked Liam Fox in the House of Commons, are named and shamed.
I'd advise m'luds to put the kettle on and think it over in a few (hundred) rounds of golf.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/next-general-election/next-general-election/220401605/
7th/8th of Dec (I think) are the scheduled hearing dates
The Govt is wary, in my view, as it thinks on the bare figures taking into account the Ken Clarke's etc the vote could be tight. If it loses we must surely be off into General Election territory (Corbyn can surely hardly refuse to facilitate getting round the FTPA or he'll look like he's running from the chance of being PM).
So one assumes there will be a lot of Labour MP's squirming around the calculation of "is it better to vote to Remain as I really want to, at the risk of getting buried in an election where Corbyn is miles behind in the polls, and going (in most cases) against the constituents' direct vote?" For diehard Tory Remainers voting against Article 50, surely the reselection committee and "ladies with blue hair", await. A fate worse than death that one, one imagines.
I suspect the Govt would get it through though, once the chips are down.
LAB’s leadership weakness and another double digit Tory lead will increase the clamour for an early election
May doesn’t have the MPs to be sure of getting a BREXIT deal through....
...I understand that there’s already talk of CCHQ putting the focus on a 2017 election with planning having been started.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/04/labs-leadership-weakness-and-another-double-digit-tory-lead-will-increase-the-clamour-for-an-early-election/
So how about Cui Bono?
The winners are ...
(1) Ukip. They're already making hay
(2) The lawyers. They're already making money.
Who loses ...
(1) The Labour party in the north. So should we add Mrs May to the first list?
Should the House of Lords vote against triggering Article 50 that would be their death knell.
The government would pass an Article 50 Enabling bill 600 to 50 tomorrow. The Lords wouldn't stop it, and even if they did, the government could always create 100 peers.
The fact is that the legal case, as Jack of Kent wrote about, was always likely to succeed.
The error was the government not passing a Bill on Referendum + 1 day.
https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/794123336813019136
But UKIP leadership elections are effectively a Catch-22. In order to win (or aim to win) you must be certifiably insane. But if you are truly insane, you are won't be a successful UKIP leader.
Only Nigel ever had the genius to unlock that conundrum.