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.
I always said we'd never leave the EU,irrespective of the Brexit vote ..... we're simply too locked in politically, legally and economically. Would Mrs May risk a GE three years early (always assuming she could) to get her own way? No way Jose.
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.
Governments can withdraw from Treaties such as the 1972 European Treaty to join the EU..
However, the 1972 Treaty indirectly also gave domestic rights to UK citizens. Domestic rights can not be withdrawn by Governments without parliament's agreement.
So parliament's agreement is needed to trigger Article 50 because it leads to withdrawal of domestic rights.
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.
That last clause is absurd. There are foreign troops and weapons here, and nobody ever asked Parliament whether it was OK. What mechanism would you accept for leaving NATO? It was the royal prerogative (under a Labour government) that took Britain in, but you don't think its use would be legitimate to take Britain out?
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?
What about the ruling contradicts any of that?
He didn't promise that the vote would be binding. He promised that the government would respect it. Which they are.
It's 7.07am on the East Coast of the US and the nation is waking up to a further shift towards Trump. 538.com now has North Carolina in having joined Florida as being pink tinted in their electoral map.
It's 7.03am on the East Coast of the US and the nation is waking up to a further shift towards Trump. 538.com now has North Carolina in having joined Florida as being pink tinted in their electoral map.
A further shift towards Trump except in several polls that have shifted to Clinton .
''I didn't think the government was legally bound to follow the referendum result in the first place.''
Really? Check back through the threads from the summer and count the times remainers told us out was out, there was no going back and the die was cast - so be careful with your decision.
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
Whatever the merits of the case, this was NOT was remainers told us. We were told that out meant out. NO going back. No second thoughts. Be careful what you wish for.
I go to a meeting and come back to find all shades of hell have been released.
Time for a hefty dose of perspective - today's outcome was always a possibility as was the appeal to the Supreme Court which will, I suspect, be successful before Christmas and won't hold up the triggering of A50 much if at all.
As someone who against my Party voted to LEAVE (the Conservative Party was apparently neutral unwilling or unable to support its own leader and Prime Minister for some reason), I didn't vote for Brexit on any terms but I did vote for the process of leaving to begin.
Like many, I thought A50 would be triggered on June 24th but given the complete lack of preparation (seemingly) within Government for the eventuality of a LEAVE vote (and every time anyone like TSE says how wonderful Osborne is, ask him why there was no planning for a LEAVE vote apart from Carney at the BoE it seems ?), it's understandable a period of preparation (say 6 months) was in order.
Again, I voted for the process of LEAVE to begin but not for the outcome of that process. I would expect the resulting Treaty to be properly scrutinised within Parliament and perhaps to be put before the public in a referendum (or via a General Election).
The A50 process and negotiations have to happen - the LEAVE vote mandated that in my view. It did not mandate the outcome in terms of the final Treaty - I want us to LEAVE but I'm not prepared to accept any form of soft boiled or half baked Brexit.
''I didn't think the government was legally bound to follow the referendum result in the first place.''
Really? Check back through the threads from the summer and count the times remainers told us out was out, there was no going back and the die was cast - so be careful with your decision.
Well of course. Because it'd be political suicide for the government to say "Actually, nah, we're not doing it". They were never going to ignore the result. But that doesn't mean they were legally bound to follow it.
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.
Governments can withdraw from Treaties such as the 1972 European Treaty to join the EU..
However, the 1972 Treaty indirectly also gave domestic rights to UK citizens. Domestic rights can not be withdrawn by Governments without parliament's agreement.
So parliament's agreement is needed to trigger Article 50 because it leads to withdrawal of domestic rights.
''I didn't think the government was legally bound to follow the referendum result in the first place.''
Really? Check back through the threads from the summer and count the times remainers told us out was out, there was no going back and the die was cast - so be careful with your decision.
Wow. There's a novel constitutional doctrine. Comments on political betting websites have the power to bind the future actions of the government.
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
Whatever the merits of the case, this was NOT was remainers told us. We were told that out meant out. NO going back. No second thoughts. Be careful what you wish for.
So Remainers are responsible for interpreting and executing Brexit?
Bill Mitchell How is ABC faking a 2 point lead for Hillary despite just a D-7 sample? They dropped Trump from +15 to +7 w/ I's and to only 6 w/ blacks.
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
''I didn't think the government was legally bound to follow the referendum result in the first place.''
Really? Check back through the threads from the summer and count the times remainers told us out was out, there was no going back and the die was cast - so be careful with your decision.
Come on dude, the Remainers on this site cannot speak for the government.
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.
That last clause is absurd. There are foreign troops and weapons here, and nobody ever asked Parliament whether it was OK. What mechanism would you accept for leaving NATO? It was the royal prerogative (under a Labour government) that took Britain in, but you don't think its use would be legitimate to take Britain out?
The limits being tested are over domestic legislation, not international treaties and so forth.
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 Lords would be unlikely to agree to repeal of the FTA!
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.
And the essential point is the (legal) irrevocability of A50 invocation - which isn't normally the case with treaties.
It's 7.03am on the East Coast of the US and the nation is waking up to a further shift towards Trump. 538.com now has North Carolina in having joined Florida as being pink tinted in their electoral map.
A further shift towards Trump except in several polls that have shifted to Clinton .
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 didn't think the government was legally bound to follow the referendum result in the first place.''
Really? Check back through the threads from the summer and count the times remainers told us out was out, there was no going back and the die was cast - so be careful with your decision.
I'm not convinced that PB comments have any weight in constitutional law.
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
The - one paragraph - Bill should have tabled the day Mrs May become PM.
Do you really believe that Labour MPs inheavily Leave voting constituencies, where UKIP is breathing down their necks, would vote against the wishes of the country and their own constituents?
It was brought to the High Court for a judgement on the constitutional position by a couple of citizens, as is their right.
This is the same mistake that people make when talking about the ECJ. The problem is not that either court is activist but that they are bound to make judgements based on quite strict interpretations of the law. It is also why talk of changing the powers of the ECJ or the UK courts is daft. You either accept them or you don't. Thankfully in the case of the ECJ we have a means of taking ourselves out of its jurisdiction (if that ever actually happens). Of course that is not the case with the UK courts.
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.
And the essential point is the (legal) irrevocability of A50 invocation - which isn't normally the case with treaties.
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.
That last clause is absurd. There are foreign troops and weapons here, and nobody ever asked Parliament whether it was OK. What mechanism would you accept for leaving NATO? It was the royal prerogative (under a Labour government) that took Britain in, but you don't think its use would be legitimate to take Britain out?
The limits being tested are over domestic legislation, not international treaties and so forth.
Yes indeed. I wasn't offering NATO as an analogy to the EU. It was Parliament that took Britain into the EU.
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
The - one paragraph - Bill should have tabled the day Mrs May become PM.
Do you really believe that Labour MPs inheavily Leave voting constituencies, where UKIP is breathing down their necks, would vote against the wishes of the country and their own constituents?
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
@rcs1000 on getting people on board the Brexit train, I think that's something the government doesn't understand. Brexit is possible because thr leave coalition. Was wide enough to win the vote. Now the government needs to move on from the leave coalition and build a Brexit coalition. It is possible to get a deal done with the EU that pleases 70-75% of people in the country to a minimum level. The unfortunate part is that the Brexit coalition may not be the same as the leave coalition. Until someone in government realises this and also realises that the 52% of leave voters are going to be impossible satisfy then we're stuck in a sort of purgatory where 20% of remain voters and campaigners are trying to stop Brexit and 20% of leave voters are trying to close the borders and end all immigration while 60% of the nation just looks on in despair.
Passing a vote and getting as many MPs on board as possible is step one of the process.
So Remainers are responsible for interpreting and executing Brexit?
Absolutely. It was the remainers who emphasized the primacy of the referendum, not leavers.
It was used as a stick to beat us. No going back. NO second chances. Out means out. Personally I never thought it was binding, and I never believed those remainers who insisted it was final.
I doubt this changes too much as the Government has a majority in the Commons and the backing of the DUP and Carswell to trigger Article 50. There can also be no vote yet on the Brexit terms as negotiations have not even started. However if Parliament, especially the Lord's, delays Article 50 being triggered beyond March expect a Paul Nuttall led UKIP to see a quicker revival than Lazarus!
It's only one poll of course, and others are a lot better for her, but the overall picture it's clear: it's looking like the weakest brick in Clinton's firewall.
With Nevada early voting numbers looking good, VA+PA+NH would take her to 269 ..... ME2 to decide it? :-)
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.
And the essential point is the (legal) irrevocability of A50 invocation - which isn't normally the case with treaties.
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
The - one paragraph - Bill should have tabled the day Mrs May become PM.
Do you really believe that Labour MPs inheavily Leave voting constituencies, where UKIP is breathing down their necks, would vote against the wishes of the country and their own constituents?
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
300 Tory MPs, plus the DUP, UUP and Carsewell would be enough to see it through. In reality it would also get about 100 Labour MPs, many of whom campaigned to leave giving a minimum majority of 150 IMO. The Lords is where Labour and the Lib Dems may try and frustrate the process, even then the PM will declare war on them and stuff the Lords with 100 new Tory peers.
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
Richard, I have a massive amount of respect for you, but in this case I think you're insane. Politicians love winning elections and gaining power. There may be a few crazies (Nick Clegg, Kenneth Clarke) who genuinely love the EU, but for most it was just a part of the post War consensus.
There are no votes to be won in Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent or a hundred other Labour seats for opposing this. On the contrary, MPs who opposed the overwhelming will of their constituents would find themselves without a job come the next election. Even inside the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable and Paddy Ashdown have said the will of the people must be respected.
It was brought to the High Court for a judgement on the constitutional position by a couple of citizens, as is their right.
May I nominate "It was a mistake for the courts to intervene on what is an explosive political issue" as the silliest sentence I have read so far today. The government must obey the law. The courts interpret the law.
What share of the popular vote would Ukip need to win to win an overall majority at the next election?
On 650 seats
A vote share of
Con 23%
Lab 23%
Lib Dem 5%
UKIP 37%
Sees a UKIP majority of 50
Thanks. I think that's probably out of reach no matter what happens in the next few years.
I found that by accident. I was trying to find what Labour's floor was under Corbyn was and what it translated into seats and I transposed the Tory and UKIP share of the vote.
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
The - one paragraph - Bill should have tabled the day Mrs May become PM.
Do you really believe that Labour MPs inheavily Leave voting constituencies, where UKIP is breathing down their necks, would vote against the wishes of the country and their own constituents?
I'm not convinced it would have passed in the post-vote shock. I think it would now, but only if May was willing to reveal her negotiating hand.
I think May is actually too frit to do that.
I still think the SC will overturn (by finding perhaps that it was not domestic rights created by the 1972 Act (but Treaty Rights), or perhaps that exercising not Article 50 does not on its own constitute exiting the EU and forfeiting those rights.
But if not, a 2017 election - which i previously estimated at 50pc must be somewhere closer to 65, 70pc now.
2) The judges have missed (ducked?) the opportunity to provide a pithy statement of general principles in terms that the general public can easily understand. I hope that the Supreme Court remedies this gap.
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.
Not really. They are simply interpreting the constitution as it stands.
RochdalePioneers said: » show previous quotes ' Fixed Term Parliament Act made the timetable very clear - 17 working days between proroguing of Parliament and polling day.'
That is incorrect! The period is now 25 days-ie 5 weeks from Dissolution. That assumes that 2/3 of MPs have agreed. If polls remain close to where they have been recently I cannot see Corbyn bowing to her wishes - despite earlier statements.
@rcs1000 on getting people on board the Brexit train, I think that's something the government doesn't understand. Brexit is possible because thr leave coalition. Was wide enough to win the vote. Now the government needs to move on from the leave coalition and build a Brexit coalition. It is possible to get a deal done with the EU that pleases 70-75% of people in the country to a minimum level. The unfortunate part is that the Brexit coalition may not be the same as the leave coalition. Until someone in government realises this and also realises that the 52% of leave voters are going to be impossible satisfy then we're stuck in a sort of purgatory where 20% of remain voters and campaigners are trying to stop Brexit and 20% of leave voters are trying to close the borders and end all immigration while 60% of the nation just looks on in despair.
Passing a vote and getting as many MPs on board as possible is step one of the process.
Agree 100%
(I'm worrying that you and I are beginning to sound like an echo chamber on here...)
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
The - one paragraph - Bill should have tabled the day Mrs May become PM.
Do you really believe that Labour MPs inheavily Leave voting constituencies, where UKIP is breathing down their necks, would vote against the wishes of the country and their own constituents?
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
' 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.'
But under that scenario some constitutional experts suggest we could end up with Corbyn as caretaker PM for the election period!
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?
The text of the referendum bill made it clear that the referendum was advisory. It is quite possible, and it has been done in the past, to make a referendum binding.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whilst I agree with the principle you set out I am afraid I think you are very wrong on the outcome. I do not believe Parliament will pass A50. Your confidence in MPs passing it is very misplaced and I think the Lords will scupper it even if it gets that far.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
Precisely why I reckon a bet with Betfair on Article 50 not being triggered before July 2017 at around odds of 6/4 represents decent value, BUT DYOR.
There may be a few crazies (Nick Clegg, Kenneth Clarke) who genuinely love the EU, but for most it was just a part of the post War consensus.
I know this is pedantic, but to call it part of the post War consensus is highly misleading. It was actually the first step in breaking the post War consensus of managed decline.
' 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.'
But under that scenario some constitutional experts suggest we could end up with Corbyn as caretaker PM for the election period!
Name these constitutional experts and also please provide links.
Comments
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/794120004002148352
Would Mrs May risk a GE three years early (always assuming she could) to get her own way? No way Jose.
Erm....that the vote isn't binding?
Governments can withdraw from Treaties such as the 1972 European Treaty to join the EU..
However, the 1972 Treaty indirectly also gave domestic rights to UK citizens. Domestic rights can not be withdrawn by Governments without parliament's agreement.
So parliament's agreement is needed to trigger Article 50 because it leads to withdrawal of domestic rights.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/11/that-constitutional-crisis-i-predicted-in-june-has-now-arrived-enjoy.html
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/794143338387668992
It's 7.07am on the East Coast of the US and the nation is waking up to a further shift towards Trump. 538.com now has North Carolina in having joined Florida as being pink tinted in their electoral map.
Really? Check back through the threads from the summer and count the times remainers told us out was out, there was no going back and the die was cast - so be careful with your decision.
The referendum has no legal weight. The question, from a point of law, is simply "is it within the prerogative of the government acting on behalf of the Crown to invoke Article 50".
Jack of Kent, and other constitutional lawyers, have made the case that no it isn't, because the very Act of invocation will cause UK citizens, two years down the line, to lose rights that had been granted to them under Primary UK legislation. It is not in the prerogative of the Executive to strip rights from citizens without recourse to parliament.
The government should have tabled the Bill on the day following the referendum. It would have passed 600 to 50, and sailed through the Lords.
Instead, Mrs May got into a stupid fight. Every day that passes between the referendum and parliament's assent increases the distance MPs feel from their constituents decisions and increases the chance 'events' will intervene.
Theresa, pass the Bill.
Whatever the merits of the case, this was NOT was remainers told us. We were told that out meant out. NO going back. No second thoughts. Be careful what you wish for.
I go to a meeting and come back to find all shades of hell have been released.
Time for a hefty dose of perspective - today's outcome was always a possibility as was the appeal to the Supreme Court which will, I suspect, be successful before Christmas and won't hold up the triggering of A50 much if at all.
As someone who against my Party voted to LEAVE (the Conservative Party was apparently neutral unwilling or unable to support its own leader and Prime Minister for some reason), I didn't vote for Brexit on any terms but I did vote for the process of leaving to begin.
Like many, I thought A50 would be triggered on June 24th but given the complete lack of preparation (seemingly) within Government for the eventuality of a LEAVE vote (and every time anyone like TSE says how wonderful Osborne is, ask him why there was no planning for a LEAVE vote apart from Carney at the BoE it seems ?), it's understandable a period of preparation (say 6 months) was in order.
Again, I voted for the process of LEAVE to begin but not for the outcome of that process. I would expect the resulting Treaty to be properly scrutinised within Parliament and perhaps to be put before the public in a referendum (or via a General Election).
The A50 process and negotiations have to happen - the LEAVE vote mandated that in my view. It did not mandate the outcome in terms of the final Treaty - I want us to LEAVE but I'm not prepared to accept any form of soft boiled or half baked Brexit.
(Or so my reading of Jack of Kent suggests.)
It was brought to the High Court for a judgement on the constitutional position by a couple of citizens, as is their right.
A vote share of
Con 23%
Lab 23%
Lib Dem 5%
UKIP 37%
Sees a UKIP majority of 50
Interesting times.
Good afternoon, everyone.
So stupid.
How is ABC faking a 2 point lead for Hillary despite just a D-7 sample? They dropped Trump from +15 to +7 w/ I's and to only 6 w/ blacks.
After two days of awful news cycle...
'It doesn't say that, to put it simply, this ruling is how we leave, not about stopping us leaving.'
To put it simply your comment is absurd.
The very best that can now happen now - and it is by no means ideal - is that this goes to a General Election.
At this point I am not confident that Article 50 will et triggered at all at any time in the near or medium future.
The constitutional doctrine is totally irrelevant. All I am doing is nailing a rank remainer lie.
Morris_Dancer said:
' Mr. Essexit, indeed.
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 Lords would be unlikely to agree to repeal of the FTA!
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=rrpromo
How about any unelected Lords who vote against?
Do you really believe that Labour MPs inheavily Leave voting constituencies, where UKIP is breathing down their necks, would vote against the wishes of the country and their own constituents?
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
Skim readers might alight on just paragraphs 5, 94, 95-96 and 105.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
Passing a vote and getting as many MPs on board as possible is step one of the process.
Absolutely. It was the remainers who emphasized the primacy of the referendum, not leavers.
It was used as a stick to beat us. No going back. NO second chances. Out means out. Personally I never thought it was binding, and I never believed those remainers who insisted it was final.
Does that also go for Prime Minister David Cameron?
http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/11/Topline-2016-10-WBUR-NH-General-6.pdf
It's only one poll of course, and others are a lot better for her, but the overall picture it's clear: it's looking like the weakest brick in Clinton's firewall.
With Nevada early voting numbers looking good, VA+PA+NH would take her to 269 ..... ME2 to decide it? :-)
https://twitter.com/mjrobbins/status/794151054363529220
There are no votes to be won in Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent or a hundred other Labour seats for opposing this. On the contrary, MPs who opposed the overwhelming will of their constituents would find themselves without a job come the next election. Even inside the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable and Paddy Ashdown have said the will of the people must be respected.
Yep. A wealthy, privileged member of the elite. Should go down well in the North of England.
I'm wondering whether they have enough to provide one leader.
I think May is actually too frit to do that.
I still think the SC will overturn (by finding perhaps that it was not domestic rights created by the 1972 Act (but Treaty Rights), or perhaps that exercising not Article 50 does not on its own constitute exiting the EU and forfeiting those rights.
But if not, a 2017 election - which i previously estimated at 50pc must be somewhere closer to 65, 70pc now.
1) It's carefully argued.
2) The judges have missed (ducked?) the opportunity to provide a pithy statement of general principles in terms that the general public can easily understand. I hope that the Supreme Court remedies this gap.
» show previous quotes
' Fixed Term Parliament Act made the timetable very clear - 17 working days between proroguing of Parliament and polling day.'
That is incorrect! The period is now 25 days-ie 5 weeks from Dissolution. That assumes that 2/3 of MPs have agreed. If polls remain close to where they have been recently I cannot see Corbyn bowing to her wishes - despite earlier statements.
100% correct...totally agree. And Corbyn's comments reflect this.
(I'm worrying that you and I are beginning to sound like an echo chamber on here...)
Why not?
' 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.'
But under that scenario some constitutional experts suggest we could end up with Corbyn as caretaker PM for the election period!
If May does go for a parliamentary vote, every vote will count. LDs should be selling this about having your say on Brexit.
Ahead of a general anaesthetic? Grace under fire sir, sweet dreams and happy wakings.
Odds must be shortening on a 2017 election...
He deliberately made the referendum advisory rather than legally enforceable as his backstop in the event the referendum vote went 'the wrong way'.
Hope all goes well for you today.
https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/793871820843692032
• North Carolina OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +8
• Colorado OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +4
• Wisconsin OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +2
• Iowa OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Trump +10
• Florida OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +3
• Pennsylvania OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +5