Really I think this is an overreaction. All the court has said is that it is the law that the Sec State can't use Crown prerogative to issue Article 50. Parliament will have to be involved.
If triggering art 50 is thwarted or significant barriers put in place on the negotiating stance then I feel that democracy will have been defeated and that we are living in a tyranny
From the day of the vote it was evident the elite hated the vote, so I suppose we should not be surprised wealthy London judges made this decision. The game is to weaken the UK's negotiating position by forcing May to reveal as many negotiation positions as possible. Then they can argue that the bad deal is worse than EU membership to try to persuade us to stay in.
Appeal seems stupid given the unequivocal nature of the verdict. May should bring forth a Bill to enable Article 50 to be triggered ASAP. If Parliament votes it down, call a general election.
Appeal seems stupid given the unequivocal nature of the verdict. May should bring forth a Bill to enable Article 50 to be triggered ASAP. If Parliament votes it down, call a general election.
I say this with a heavy heart. I REALLY don't want a general election.
The PM and subsequent PMs are the losers in this as its circumscribing the Royal Prerogative.....not that that, in itself, is a bad thing......I've no doubt the Civil Service advice was to use the Royal Prerogative, who needs elected politicians messing things up when we can do that perfectly well by ourselves.....?
Hopefully we'll get the thoughts of Alastair Meeks on this, he called this right so far.
It will lead to the politicans cutting the lawyers down to size
about time
Never going to happen.
On current trends it will
people arent going to put up with poshos protecting their pockets with legal shennanigans
We're making sure there's effective checks and balances on the executive.
Don't laugh, but say Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister, you'd want to make sure the limits of the Royal Prerogative were delineated clearly lest he start doing things like pulling us out of NATO and inviting the Russians to station troops and weapons here.
1) It increases the probability of a general election in 2017
2) It makes it more likely Parliament will have to be told what was offered to Nissan to induce them to stay
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
Not so sure about a GE thinking about. May would have to go to the country with a manifesto that would include what the terms of Brexit are in at least basic respects e.g. on single market. But she wont know as we haven't negotiated anything. I suppose she could just write 'The Conservatives will enact Article 50' and not add anything else - but would that survive a campaign?
Hopefully we'll get the thoughts of Alastair Meeks on this, he called this right so far.
It will lead to the politicans cutting the lawyers down to size
about time
Never going to happen.
On current trends it will
people arent going to put up with poshos protecting their pockets with legal shennanigans
We're making sure there's effective checks and balances on the executive.
Don't laugh, but say Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister, you'd want to make sure the limits of the Royal Prerogative were delineated clearly lest he start doing things like pulling us out of NATO and inviting the Russians to station troops and weapons here.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
It's obvious to all and sundry a one vote lead for Remain would not have been seen that way. Yet suddenly a million vote majority for Leave is dismissed.
Hopefully we'll get the thoughts of Alastair Meeks on this, he called this right so far.
It will lead to the politicans cutting the lawyers down to size
about time
Never going to happen.
On current trends it will
people arent going to put up with poshos protecting their pockets with legal shennanigans
We're making sure there's effective checks and balances on the executive.
Don't laugh, but say Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister, you'd want to make sure the limits of the Royal Prerogative were delineated clearly lest he start doing things like pulling us out of NATO and inviting the Russians to station troops and weapons here.
what self righteous tosh.
A lawyer couldnt stop him doing that;
Don't underestimate the power of the Dark Side law
So let me see if I have got this right. The Govt. appeals - and wins -> storm in a teacup. As you were.
Or the Govt. loses the appeal. May puts Art 50 to the Commons.
Where Labour has to decide whether to support her - and if they do, look terminally weak, having (kinda) campaigned to Remain. Or campaign with the LibDems and the SNP to block Article 50 - and so the will of the people - and go into an election in early 2017 with Corbyn as leader?
It's obvious to all and sundry a one vote lead for Remain would not have been seen that way. Yet suddenly a million vote majority for Leave is dismissed.
Having read Jack of Kent's commentary, this judgement was always likely. The court's job is to uphold the law, and it is by no means clear that Article 50 can be triggered without the conset of parliament.
And even it wan't necessary, it was still the right thing to do. Why? Because it would force MPs in Leave voting constituencies to back their constituents. Do you really believe the MPs for Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent, with UKIP breathing down their necks, would vote against an enabling bill?
An Article 50 Enabling Bill would pass with a majority of more than 400. And if the Lords struck it down, would be grounds for 100 new Lords to be ennobled immediately.
It staggers me that so many intelligent people, who posted with such sense during the referendum campaign, have failed to see the political necessity of getting as many people on the Brexit bus as possible.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
I guess most of the Conservative Party would vote for whatever terms the PM sets out, minus a few Soubry types. Backbench Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats might vote against them, wanting to stay in the customs union and maintain free movement.
Hopefully we'll get the thoughts of Alastair Meeks on this, he called this right so far.
It will lead to the politicans cutting the lawyers down to size
about time
Never going to happen.
On current trends it will
people arent going to put up with poshos protecting their pockets with legal shennanigans
We're making sure there's effective checks and balances on the executive.
Don't laugh, but say Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister, you'd want to make sure the limits of the Royal Prerogative were delineated clearly lest he start doing things like pulling us out of NATO and inviting the Russians to station troops and weapons here.
Well, if that is in the manifesto upon which his Labour Party are elected, then so be it.
So let me see if I have got this right. The Govt. appeals - and wins -> storm in a teacup. As you were.
Or the Govt. loses the appeal. May puts Art 50 to the Commons.
Where Labour has to decide whether to support her - and if they do, look terminally weak, having (kinda) campaigned to Remain. Or campaign with the LibDems and the SNP to block Article 50 - and so the will of the people - and go into an election in early 2017 with Corbyn as leader?
What's the point of the Government appealing? They've already taken the hit and the accompanying bad publicity. They haven't much to fear by going to a vote on A50, and appealing simply involves delay and risks double humiliation.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
Why should there be any rush to having a vote? It actually increases our negotiating scope if the EU is saying, "Get on with it," and Theresa May is saying, "I won't get it through parliament unless you give me this, this and this."
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
So let me see if I have got this right. The Govt. appeals - and wins -> storm in a teacup. As you were.
Or the Govt. loses the appeal. May puts Art 50 to the Commons.
Where Labour has to decide whether to support her - and if they do, look terminally weak, having (kinda) campaigned to Remain. Or campaign with the LibDems and the SNP to block Article 50 - and so the will of the people - and go into an election in early 2017 with Corbyn as leader?
What's the point of the Government appealing? They've already taken the hit and the accompanying bad publicity. They haven't much to fear by going to a vote on A50, and appealing simply involves delay and risks double humiliation.
Well at the moment, it looks like the Establishment trying to interfere with the will of the people. Give the Supreme Court the opportunity to consider whether that is really what they want us to read from this.
It staggers me that so many intelligent people, who posted with such sense during the referendum campaign, have failed to see the political necessity of getting as many people on the Brexit bus as possible.
When even sensible people who can see the bus is heading for a cliff are on it, I despair.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
This is the right decision. The precedent is that if a referendum is binding, the Act requiring it says so. That's what it's like with referendums in this country. Without Parliament letting a referendum decide, the position is that Parliament took Britain in (backed later in the 1975 referendum, which was also non-binding) and only Parliament can take Britain out. Want to determine what Parliament does? Fine. You know how. Of course, MPs may be influenced by the referendum result if they wish. Or if they're more responsible, they'll look at what's likely to be the government's negotiating stance and also consider the scale of Bremorse - that's called being representative.
That May wasted time arguing to the contrary shows how unfit she and Johnson are for their jobs. There was some kind of Maygasm. I'm not sure why. Maybe it was the pearls or something. But this is what a rubbish PM looks like. She doesn't come pretty-shoe high to any of her four immediate predecessors. There wasn't even good reason to allow her a honeymoon period. She was crap from the word go. Get her out fast.
I'm struggling to see what the Leavers are so upset about. That parliament might want a softer Brexit than May? What if it was the other way around and May was the one pushing a very soft option, would the ruling still be wrong?
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
Yes, the 12th of Never would indeed be the ideal date.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
WTF do you think is going to change the trade imbalance ?
we have no industrial policy and havent had for decades the City can never earn enough to pay for our addiction to imports our economy is all askew
May would be best to get a vote done ASAP - on the small point whether Art 50 can be triggered or not given that the will of the people has been decided.
''I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.''
Nah. The cat's out of the bag mate. Voters realise that they can get control of immigration without taking too much of an economic hit.
And they will have it, whatever remainers try to do.
So let me see if I have got this right. The Govt. appeals - and wins -> storm in a teacup. As you were.
Or the Govt. loses the appeal. May puts Art 50 to the Commons.
Where Labour has to decide whether to support her - and if they do, look terminally weak, having (kinda) campaigned to Remain. Or campaign with the LibDems and the SNP to block Article 50 - and so the will of the people - and go into an election in early 2017 with Corbyn as leader?
What's the point of the Government appealing? They've already taken the hit and the accompanying bad publicity. They haven't much to fear by going to a vote on A50, and appealing simply involves delay and risks double humiliation.
Yeah, there's not much point appealing. They will lose again, most probably. Yet longer delays, due to the further involvement of m'learned friends – people who are not known for their urgency.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
WTF do you think is going to change the trade imbalance ?
we have no industrial policy and havent had for decades the City can never earn enough to pay for our addiction to imports our economy is all askew
Put lawyers in charge of industrial policy, there's nothing we cannot sort out.
May would be best to get a vote done ASAP - on the small point whether Art 50 can be triggered or not given that the will of the people has been decided.
Good luck to any MPs that vote against.
Isn't the usual counter-move to a "you can't vote against this" proposal to propose an amendment and vote for that?
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
Yes, the 12th of Never would indeed be the ideal date.
No, or at least not if it increases uncertainty. We either need to commit to being out, or commit to being in.
Given the vote, the former is obviously the one to go for - and I say that as a remain voter.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
He's sounding a bit like Margaret Beckett there to me.
He shat the bed, and is going to have to lie in it.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
WTF do you think is going to change the trade imbalance ?
we have no industrial policy and havent had for decades the City can never earn enough to pay for our addiction to imports our economy is all askew
Put lawyers in charge of industrial policy, there's nothing we cannot sort out.
LOL lawyers are probably some of the least organised people on the planet
David Cameron promised a vote would be binding. We were constantly told by remainers that leave meant leave, there was no going back and once it was done it was done.
It will teach the Tories that in a parliamentary democracy parliament can't be ignored. First round to those who don't believe in gerrymandering our democratic system in order to get elected.
It's comforting to know we have a legal system robust enough to stop the barbarians running amok
David Cameron promised a vote would be binding. We were constantly told by remainers that leave meant leave, there was no going back and once it was done it was done.
If May loses the appeal re Art 50, the only sensible thing to do would be to call a quick GE so as to pack the commons with more blues.
I wonder if that's maybe the intention. There needs to be some excuse to overrirde the fixed term Act, something of constitutional principle like this is almost perfect cover for a PM.
The state Labour and ukip are atm ...... it'll never get better for her to seek her own mandate.
''Bill Cash will go mad. UKIP might get an extra couple of MPs. Most voters will shrug and accept it. But TMay really will have to bring down net migration. One way or another. ''
I think you vastly, vastly underestimate the feelings out there. But we shall see.
Can anyone actually explain what constitutional principle is at stake here? Was a parliament voted needed to apply to join?
The principle is about when Crown prerogative can be used by ministers. The principle is that the Government cannot use royal prerogative to override domestic legislation made by parliament. Article 50 is not a purely foreign relations matter (which would make it more likely to be royal prerogative) since the government accepts it will affect existing domestic legislation. The Court ruled that this is the case and the principle stands and is relevant in this situation.
What this court case does show is we need a proper codified constitution.
We've got precedents here, bits in law there.
I mean prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act the convention on whether the Monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter to The Times under a pseudonym.
Comments
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/21/in-safe-hands-whose-finger-is-on-the-article-50-button/
about time
Half-time score:
Elites 1 - Democracy 0
REMAIN 48%
If triggering art 50 is thwarted or significant barriers put in place on the negotiating stance then I feel that democracy will have been defeated and that we are living in a tyranny
'It will lead to the politicans cutting the lawyers down to size'
Lawyers attempting to subvert democracy will ensure they are sorted once and for all.
1) It increases the probability of a general election in 2017
2) It makes it more likely Parliament will have to be told what was offered to Nissan to induce them to stay
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
Like leaving the EU = Hotel California...it appears Nige is the receptionist.
As there are more lawyers and people rather like the rats.
people arent going to put up with poshos protecting their pockets with legal shennanigans
JackWJackW Posts: 10,832
11:01AM
Morning Consult study of the "Shy Trumper" :
https://morningconsult.com/2016/11/03/shy-trump-social-desirability-undercover-voter-study/
Chortle.
Yah!!
The PM and subsequent PMs are the losers in this as its circumscribing the Royal Prerogative.....not that that, in itself, is a bad thing......I've no doubt the Civil Service advice was to use the Royal Prerogative, who needs elected politicians messing things up when we can do that perfectly well by ourselves.....?
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
https://twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/794141376623636480
Don't laugh, but say Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister, you'd want to make sure the limits of the Royal Prerogative were delineated clearly lest he start doing things like pulling us out of NATO and inviting the Russians to station troops and weapons here.
What they do is vital.
A lawyer couldnt stop him doing that;
Checks and balances.
Yeah but you don;t have Project Fear any more. All your main arguments have been eviscerated, as this week's PMIs show graphically.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
'A majority of 1 is fine, the rest is ego'
Congrats to Mr Meeks on getting it right.
I'm amazed by how uncertain politics has become over the last few years. Surely things must settle down soon?
Or the Govt. loses the appeal. May puts Art 50 to the Commons.
Where Labour has to decide whether to support her - and if they do, look terminally weak, having (kinda) campaigned to Remain. Or campaign with the LibDems and the SNP to block Article 50 - and so the will of the people - and go into an election in early 2017 with Corbyn as leader?
some of voters are more equal than others.
Could add an interesting non Heathrow dynamic to the by election
And even it wan't necessary, it was still the right thing to do. Why? Because it would force MPs in Leave voting constituencies to back their constituents. Do you really believe the MPs for Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent, with UKIP breathing down their necks, would vote against an enabling bill?
An Article 50 Enabling Bill would pass with a majority of more than 400. And if the Lords struck it down, would be grounds for 100 new Lords to be ennobled immediately.
It staggers me that so many intelligent people, who posted with such sense during the referendum campaign, have failed to see the political necessity of getting as many people on the Brexit bus as possible.
Don't appeal the decision. Pass the Bill.
I can see big UKIP gains.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/152681431429/jeremy-corbyns-comment-on-the-high-court-ruling
If anyone cares.
Hasn't been much to laugh about for a while.
Quite
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
If she fails to do this and loses a commons vote, she will have to call a GE anyway to stop losing face and the premiership.
Any way you toss the dice - a new chance fore Boris to GRAB the helm.
That May wasted time arguing to the contrary shows how unfit she and Johnson are for their jobs. There was some kind of Maygasm. I'm not sure why. Maybe it was the pearls or something. But this is what a rubbish PM looks like. She doesn't come pretty-shoe high to any of her four immediate predecessors. There wasn't even good reason to allow her a honeymoon period. She was crap from the word go. Get her out fast.
'Slow John, that's not what I said.'
Try reading your own comments.
we have no industrial policy and havent had for decades
the City can never earn enough to pay for our addiction to imports
our economy is all askew
Good luck to any MPs that vote against.
Nah. The cat's out of the bag mate. Voters realise that they can get control of immigration without taking too much of an economic hit.
And they will have it, whatever remainers try to do.
Yeah, there's not much point appealing. They will lose again, most probably. Yet longer delays, due to the further involvement of m'learned friends – people who are not known for their urgency.
Given the vote, the former is obviously the one to go for - and I say that as a remain voter.
He shat the bed, and is going to have to lie in it.
Was I wrong to believe this?
It's comforting to know we have a legal system robust enough to stop the barbarians running amok
The state Labour and ukip are atm ...... it'll never get better for her to seek her own mandate.
'May needs to call a general election, this is getting ridiculous now.'
The sooner the better,also a good opportunity to clear out some MP's that no longer represent their constituents views.
I think you vastly, vastly underestimate the feelings out there. But we shall see.
Will a HoL vote against triggering Article 50 trigger the abolition of the HoL?
Another £20 for me.
So Cameron and the remainers lied through their teeth?
I see.
We've got precedents here, bits in law there.
I mean prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act the convention on whether the Monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter to The Times under a pseudonym.