Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Government loses Article 50 case. Theresa May is the big loser

SystemSystem Posts: 12,265
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Government loses Article 50 case. Theresa May is the big loser not BREXIT

The woman who brought the Article 50 speaking outside the RCJ pic.twitter.com/Khpqh5w9jx

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,406
    edited November 2016
    Hopefully we'll get the thoughts of Alastair Meeks on this, he called this right so far.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/21/in-safe-hands-whose-finger-is-on-the-article-50-button/
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    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
  • 2nd, like the Government.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Half-time score:

    Elites 1 - Democracy 0

  • 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.

  • Half-time score:

    Elites 1 - Democracy 0

    Nonsense, the rule of law, thus democracy is the winner.
  • LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%

    :innocent:
  • So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

  • Half-time score:

    Elites 1 - Democracy 0

    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.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    TSE, Great avatar, love the bloke.

    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
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,963

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Why have Remainers suddenly discovered they give a toss about it?
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited November 2016
    @Alanbrooke

    '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.
  • My initial thoughts

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited November 2016
    Nigel Farage: I'll be back if Brexit hasn't happened by 2019

    Like leaving the EU = Hotel California...it appears Nige is the receptionist.
  • Essexit said:

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Why have Remainers suddenly discovered they give a toss about it?
    I've always given a toss about it.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,367
    There was a suggestion a few years ago that we should use lawyers for drug-testing rather than rats.

    As there are more lawyers and people rather like the rats.
  • 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.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    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
  • Nigel Farage: I'll be back if Brexit hasn't happened by 2019

    Like leaving the EU = Hotel California...it appears Nige is the receptionist.

    Will Trump be able to spare him?
  • So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Because we're dealing with opponents who will do everything in their power to frustrate the wishes of the voters.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    This post from @JackW is required reading for BETTORS

    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/
  • 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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,769
    hehe
  • 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.
  • Sean_Fear said:

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Because we're dealing with opponents who will do everything in their power to frustrate the wishes of the voters.
    Only half (+2%)
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Much better polling for Hils today.
  • 619 said:
    8 point lead in the 4-way contest.

    Yah!!
  • Up to a point, Lord Copper.

    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.....?
  • Sean_Fear said:

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Because we're dealing with opponents who will do everything in their power to frustrate the wishes of the voters.
    Only half (+2%)
    That's also known as the majority.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.

  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    @Pulpstar's post FPT re: m'learned friends delaying A50. Some interesting bets about...
  • 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.
  • LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%

    :innocent:

    Agreed - pretty much half and half (in June).
  • Sean_Fear said:

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Because we're dealing with opponents who will do everything in their power to frustrate the wishes of the voters.
    Only half (+2%)
    A majority of one should be enough.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I'm interested in what labour might do here.

    What they do is vital.
  • My initial thoughts

    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?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    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;
  • Can anyone actually explain what constitutional principle is at stake here? Was a parliament voted needed to apply to join?
  • 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
    Politicians aren't above the law.
    Checks and balances.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Agreed - pretty much half and half (in June). ''

    Yeah but you don;t have Project Fear any more. All your main arguments have been eviscerated, as this week's PMIs show graphically.
  • john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.
  • So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Parliament is only 650 people - the vote in June involved over 33 million....
  • Sean_Fear said:

    Sean_Fear said:

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Because we're dealing with opponents who will do everything in their power to frustrate the wishes of the voters.
    Only half (+2%)
    A majority of one should be enough.
    As an MP, with a majority of 20,000 plus said

    'A majority of 1 is fine, the rest is ego'
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,982
    Well, that was unexpected (by me).

    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?
  • LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%

    :innocent:

    Agreed - pretty much half and half (in June).
    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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    My initial thoughts

    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.

    Agree with 1, not sure there is much to 2 and disagree about 3.

  • 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
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    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
    Politicians aren't above the law.
    Checks and balances.
    Lawyers arent above the electorate
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    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?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%

    :innocent:

    Agreed - pretty much half and half (in June).
    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.
    precisely

    some of voters are more equal than others.
  • Sean_Fear said:

    So why are Leavers afraid of Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Because we're dealing with opponents who will do everything in their power to frustrate the wishes of the voters.
    But more LEAVE voters than REMAIN ones voters have changed their minds.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,406
    edited November 2016
    If my diary is right, the Richmond Park by election is less than a week before Supreme Court Appeal.

    Could add an interesting non Heathrow dynamic to the by election
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Will labour really vote down Article 50 and expose their northern constituencies to a resurgent UKIP in a 2017 GE?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,920


    Half-time score:

    Elites 1 - Democracy 0

    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.

    Don't appeal the decision. Pass the Bill.
  • john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.

    I can see big UKIP gains.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,296

    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.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565
    2016 politics just got really, really funny.
    Hasn't been much to laugh about for a while.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,291

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,907
    edited November 2016
    SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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."
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Don't appeal the decision. Pass the Bill.''

    Quite
  • SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    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.

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Corbyn's comments suggest Labour would not vote down article 50 triggering.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,907
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited November 2016
    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.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @TheScreamingEagles

    'Slow John, that's not what I said.'

    Try reading your own comments.

  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    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?
  • john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles

    'Slow John, that's not what I said.'

    Try reading your own comments.

    I wrote them ergo I read them, and learn to use the reply function, perhaps you wouldn't get so confused.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807

    SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''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.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    IanB2 said:

    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.

  • SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,920

    Can anyone actually explain what constitutional principle is at stake here? Was a parliament voted needed to apply to join?
    The Treaty we signed only became binding with the consent of parliament, so yes.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    TGOHF said:

    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?
  • pinkrosepinkrose Posts: 189
    May needs to call a general election, this is getting ridiculous now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,982
    Jobabob said:

    SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654



    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.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    SeanT said:

    john_zims said:

    @TheScreamingEagles


    '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
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    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.

    Was I wrong to believe this?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    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
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,783
    Dromedary said:

    There was some kind of Maygasm. I'm not sure why.

    Wasn't it anti-Leadsomstalsis?
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    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.

    Was I wrong to believe this?

    Yes. the referendum was advisory
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited November 2016
    MikeK said:

    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.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @pinkrose

    '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.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''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.
  • Does the Court judgemnent mean the House of Lords will have the final say as to whether Article 50 is triggered?

    Will a HoL vote against triggering Article 50 trigger the abolition of the HoL?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    Art 50 not being triggered before July 2017 out to 2.74 for some reason.

    Another £20 for me.
  • 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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Yes. the referendum was advisory ''

    So Cameron and the remainers lied through their teeth?

    I see.
  • 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.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited November 2016

    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
    Politicians aren't above the law.
    Checks and balances.
    Lawyers arent above the electorate
    Sure. And the way the electorate can get lawyers sacked, or change the law, is through Parliament.
This discussion has been closed.