The people were told that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. If anything, that is what they voted for. The government, therefore, failed to deliver on what it promised. If it had done as it promised, none of this would have happened. But it didn't; it lied. When a government lies, the only protection we have is our Parliament and the courts.
Yes we were told that and with the benefit of hindsight it is a pity that Cameron did not keep that promise even although he had not done any preparatory work or allowed it to be done. But he was right to acknowledge that the decision had been made. This is not a question for Parliament any more. Of course they still have several very important roles.
They can challenge and test the government's negotiating position. At least in theory they could direct the government to seek membership of the Customs Union for example. If the government does not obey they can dismiss it.
They also require to pass legislation to repeal the ECA and make provision for the thousands of other cases where EU law has become our law. They have autonomy and discretion as to how they do this.
But the decision to leave has been made.
Yep. And yesterday's judgment does not change that. But Cameron's lies show just how important it is that parliament holds the executive to account, especially when the rights of private citizens are at stake.
Its the "rights" that the EU inflicted upon the UK that are the primary reason for us leaving the EU.
.. and as for sovereignty of Parliament, its risible.. Brown inflicted the Lisbon treaty upon us without a vote, Maggie ditto re Maastricht.. at every step the EU has been inflicted on the British people, and they, via the referendum, said enough is enough, and I understand that.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
On the advisory nature of the referendum, again, the government didn't even try to argue that it was a source of authority for the decision to trigger. I suspect this will need to be repeated throughout the thread at regular intervals.
Yes it did. It's in the leaflet it sent in February, where it says something like "we will implement your decision." No doubt those with more technical skill than me can embed the preciese quote in a comment.
That would be seen as a political promise, with the same weight as a manifesto commitment, i would imagine. Politically but not legally significant.
If it was a political promise it would have had to be a campaign leaflet and therefore fall within the campaign spending limits.
That's a very interesting point
The fact that technically the referendum simply was legally advisory.
The colorally that simply must follow is that the first bit of paper I got through my door WAS in fact a campaign piece, (Obviously it was politicially) - but also legally and all that follows.
"We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms."
True.
However, as you know, the intention of this legal challenge is to subvert the will of the people. That is the problem.
If we decided to have a Referendum on restoring the death penalty, I would vote against. But it might pass. I would accept the decision.
I would not argue, for instance that the supporters had lied by saying that the conviction rate for murder had risen as a result of abolition. Or by saying that it was a result of potential murders thinking they could get away with it. I might suggest it was more likely due to juries being more likely to convict because the consequences of error were less serious, but that's interpretation.
Statistics don't lie, but the interpretation of statistics can be wrong. As Kipling observed ... 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.'
Remainers who moan about 'lies', that is the interpretation of facts they don't agree with, make fools of themselves.
But to dishonestly claim that it's all about openness and transparency is clearly absurd.
Mr Meeks has the candour to say why he's against the result. I give him credit for that. I wish others were so honest.
No, I don't know that the purpose of the challenge was to subvert the will of the people. The purpose of the challenge was to prevent the government from triggering Article 50 without the approval of Parliament. Parliament will approve the triggering of Article 50, but if it doesn't the government will resign, an election will be called and the governing party will win an increased majority. There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people.
It is entirely predictable that those massively in favour of the court case will also be in favour of MPs rejecting Article 50 or putting up so many barriers that it ensures May has the weakest of negotiating positions.
It is obvious what the Eurofanatics are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
As it happens, and for what it is worth, the Leave campaign made great play of the fact that nothing much would change and that the rights we currently enjoy as private citizens would be largely, if not completely, unaffected by a decision to leave. But that is by the by.
Are the same people who called for the rights of EU citizens in the UK to be guaranteed the day after the vote, the same people who are now demanding the PM have the power to give away our rights on a whim?
Nick Clegg is a dick. He is trying to conflate the triggering of A50 with the flavour of Brexit we get.
He should not. For better or for worse (there are of course discussions to be had around this) it is up to the government to negotiate Brexit. It is up to Parliament to respect the referendum result by setting the process in motion.
Clegg still hasn't understood why the Lib Dems went from being the third party to being a nothing party under his tenure, I see.
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
The debate in Hansard does, and that should be read as the 'Intention of Parliament'.
And more fundamentally, acts of Parliament are required to spell out what happens in the event that they are agreed by parliament. In the case of the referendum bill the only specified requirement was to hold a referendum; unlike the voting systems referendum bill, there are no clauses making any provision or granting any powers for any actions thereafter in the event of any particular result. This is why the referendum was often described, and widely accepted (in legal terms) as advisory before it had taken place.
Whilst the Referendum is obviously of enormous political weight, if it is not binding on someone or something then it is clearly of no real significance in terms of the law. [snip]
That is not entirely true. The judgement yesterday contained plenty of references to powers bestowed (or withheld) by implication and of the relative weight of powers defined by some process other than that of direct legislation.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
Rubbish. The decision yesterday was not about preventing us leaving the EU
Oh, come off it.
It's a plain statement of fact. Read the judgment.
Given that the judgement is wrong, referring me to it is not a winning argument.
I see the learned 'three Quidder' has a better understanding of our constitution and its precedents than three people with a lifetime of expertise and learning.
Nick Clegg is a dick. He is trying to conflate the triggering of A50 with the flavour of Brexit we get.
He should not. For better or for worse (there are of course discussions to be had around this) it is up to the government to negotiate Brexit. It is up to Parliament to respect the referendum result by setting the process in motion.
Yes, he's at least truthful in his motives. He didn't agree with me result of the referendum and will do anything to overturn it. All remainers are the same, just dishonest
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It could have been made binding, but the choice was made not to.
It could have been made advisory, but the choice was made not to.
For those unaware, Schumacher was at Ferrari when Brawn was the top engineer there, so they know one another very well. I'd guess he has permission from the family to say this, and that it's accurate.
Mr. Observer, it's the court of public opinion. Legally, the Government has lost its case. But most voters looking at it will think this stinks.
The BBC were wise not to show the smug as hell lawyer on the News at Ten, but their reporter describing this as a clash between an overmighty government used to doing what it liked and independent judges is not a view that will find much common ground or favour with the general public, outside of those keen to frustrate and deny the referendum result.
The media will frame things in the way that the media will frame things. They will spin and they will lie an they will seek to manipulate opinion. That is one of the reasons why we have an independent judiciary and why having one is so fundamental to a democracy. Without an independent judiciary we are China.
That has validity in all cases except when there is a decision by referendum. If Parliament is to be the servant of the nation rather than its master, it can't overturn a referendum result.
And it won't.
I would suspect that you are right, but I'm not sure that is the intention of those bringing the case. I think there is a significant proportion of Parliament who would like to delay as long as possible until a General election could be used as legitimacy for attesting that the decision had been 'reversed' by the people, or for 'something else to come along' that might indicate another form of membership.
On the advisory nature of the referendum, again, the government didn't even try to argue that it was a source of authority for the decision to trigger. I suspect this will need to be repeated throughout the thread at regular intervals.
Yes it did. It's in the leaflet it sent in February, where it says something like "we will implement your decision." No doubt those with more technical skill than me can embed the preciese quote in a comment.
That would be seen as a political promise, with the same weight as a manifesto commitment, i would imagine. Politically but not legally significant.
If it was a political promise it would have had to be a campaign leaflet and therefore fall within the campaign spending limits.
That's a very interesting point
The fact that technically the referendum simply was legally advisory.
The colorally that simply must follow is that the first bit of paper I got through my door WAS in fact a campaign piece, (Obviously it was politicially) - but also legally and all that follows.
And it would have been, had it been sent during the period set down under the referendum for limits on spending. Otherwise the production costs of decades' worth of tabloid newspaper front pages would need to be charged against the leave campaign.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
The people were told that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. If anything, that is what they voted for. The government, therefore, failed to deliver on what it promised. If it had done as it promised, none of this would have happened. But it didn't; it lied. When a government lies, the only protection we have is our Parliament and the courts.
Yes we were told that and with the benefit of hindsight it is a pity that Cameron did not keep that promise even although he had not done any preparatory work or allowed it to be done. But he was right to acknowledge that the decision had been made. This is not a question for Parliament any more. Of course they still have several very important roles.
They can challenge and test the government's negotiating position. At least in theory they could direct the government to seek membership of the Customs Union for example. If the government does not obey they can dismiss it.
They also require to pass legislation to repeal the ECA and make provision for the thousands of other cases where EU law has become our law. They have autonomy and discretion as to how they do this.
But the decision to leave has been made.
Yep. And yesterday's judgment does not change that. But Cameron's lies show just how important it is that parliament holds the executive to account, especially when the rights of private citizens are at stake.
I agree but what has that got to do with the decision of the Court that Article 50 cannot be triggered without Parliamentary consent?
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It could have been made binding, but the choice was made not to.
It could have been made advisory, but the choice was made not to.
It's unfortunate, but I'm afraid the evidence is clear on this narrow point. As someone who campaigned for Leave, I don't much like that, but I don't see the point in arguing issues that cannot be resolved in our favour. There are other more significant issues with the judgement.
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
The debate in Hansard does, and that should be read as the 'Intention of Parliament'.
Hansard, you say?
"The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Parliament never amended the Bill to make it not the final say.
"We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms."
True.
However, as you know, the intention of this legal challenge is to subvert the will of the people. That is the problem.
If we decided to have a Referendum on restoring the death penalty, I would vote against. But it might pass. I would accept the decision.
I would not argue, for instance that the supporters had lied by saying that the conviction rate for murder had risen as a result of abolition. Or by saying that it was a result of potential murders thinking they could get away with it. I might suggest it was more likely due to juries being more likely to convict because the consequences of error were less serious, but that's interpretation.
Statistics don't lie, but the interpretation of statistics can be wrong. As Kipling observed ... 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.'
Remainers who moan about 'lies', that is the interpretation of facts they don't agree with, make fools of themselves.
But to dishonestly claim that it's all about openness and transparency is clearly absurd.
Mr Meeks has the candour to say why he's against the result. I give him credit for that. I wish others were so honest.
No, I don't know that the purpose of the challenge was to subvert the will of the people. The purpose of the challenge was to prevent the government from triggering Article 50 without the approval of Parliament. Parliament will approve the triggering of Article 50, but if it doesn't the government will resign, an election will be called and the governing party will win an increased majority. There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people.
It is entirely predictable that those massively in favour of the court case will also be in favour of MPs rejecting Article 50 or putting up so many barriers that it ensures May has the weakest of negotiating positions.
It is obvious what the Eurofanatics are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
The UK voted to leave the EU, it did not give direction on EFTA membership, Single Market membership, status on EU residents in the UK, financial relations with Europe, whether £350million extra would be spent on the NHS etc etc. Swindon where I am, from with two large car factories (one German, one Japanese) certainly did not vote to leave the single market - it only voted to leave the EU, Parliament has every right to determine what brexit now means.
"We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms."
True.
However, as you know, the intention of this legal challenge is to subvert the will of the people. That is the problem.
If we decided to have a Referendum on restoring the death penalty, I would vote against. But it might pass. I would accept the decision.
I would not argue, for instance that the supporters had lied by saying that the conviction rate for murder had risen as a result of abolition. Or by saying that it was a result of potential murders thinking they could get away with it. I might suggest it was more likely due to juries being more likely to convict because the consequences of error were less serious, but that's interpretation.
Statistics don't lie, but the interpretation of statistics can be wrong. As Kipling observed ... 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.'
Remainers who moan about 'lies', that is the interpretation of facts they don't agree with, make fools of themselves.
But to dishonestly claim that it's all about openness and transparency is clearly absurd.
Mr Meeks has the candour to say why he's against the result. I give him credit for that. I wish others were so honest.
No, I don't know that the purpose of the challenge was to subvert the will of the people. The purpose of the challenge was to prevent the government from triggering Article 50 without the approval of Parliament. Parliament will approve the triggering of Article 50, but if it doesn't the government will resign, an election will be called and the governing party will win an increased majority. There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people.
It is entirely predictable that those massively in favour of the court case will also be in favour of MPs rejecting Article 50 or putting up so many barriers that it ensures May has the weakest of negotiating positions.
It is obvious what the Eurofanatics are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
It's as clear as mud what even the hard Brexit lot are up to. If you have any insight I suggest to send them to the PM, she might welcome it!
The people were told that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. If anything, that is what they voted for. The government, therefore, failed to deliver on what it promised. If it had done as it promised, none of this would have happened. But it didn't; it lied. When a government lies, the only protection we have is our Parliament and the courts.
Yes we were told that and with the benefit of hindsight it is a pity that Cameron did not keep that promise even although he had not done any preparatory work or allowed it to be done. But he was right to acknowledge that the decision had been made. This is not a question for Parliament any more. Of course they still have several very important roles.
They can challenge and test the government's negotiating position. At least in theory they could direct the government to seek membership of the Customs Union for example. If the government does not obey they can dismiss it.
They also require to pass legislation to repeal the ECA and make provision for the thousands of other cases where EU law has become our law. They have autonomy and discretion as to how they do this.
But the decision to leave has been made.
Yep. And yesterday's judgment does not change that. But Cameron's lies show just how important it is that parliament holds the executive to account, especially when the rights of private citizens are at stake.
I agree but what has that got to do with the decision of the Court that Article 50 cannot be triggered without Parliamentary consent?
The executive cannot be given a free had to initiate a process that will remove rights from private citizens without the approval of Parliament. The executive cannot be trusted.
Mr. E, precisely. It's a legal victory on a technicality to try and frustrate and deny the referendum result.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It could have been made binding, but the choice was made not to.
It could have been made advisory, but the choice was made not to.
Being non-binding is however the default position.
We have had this argument before and your position doesn't stack up. As Tony says, this is a done deal now and there are more relevant issues to debate,
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
The debate in Hansard does, and that should be read as the 'Intention of Parliament'.
Hansard, you say?
"The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Parliament never amended the Bill to make it not the final say.
When debated the government had to concede that it was advisory. Because that was the later statement, it is the one that stands. As the words do not themselves appear in the bill it is an argument that we have already lost. We should concentrate on the winnable ones over process.
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It is silent on the point but the convention, based on the old idea of Parliamentary sovereignty, is that it is still for Parliament to decide. That is the basis of the Court's decision.
And the court is wrong to so decide. Precedent doesn't necessarily stand for all time.
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Mr. Observer, it's the court of public opinion. Legally, the Government has lost its case. But most voters looking at it will think this stinks.
The BBC were wise not to show the smug as hell lawyer on the News at Ten, but their reporter describing this as a clash between an overmighty government used to doing what it liked and independent judges is not a view that will find much common ground or favour with the general public, outside of those keen to frustrate and deny the referendum result.
The media will frame things in the way that the media will frame things. They will spin and they will lie an they will seek to manipulate opinion. That is one of the reasons why we have an independent judiciary and why having one is so fundamental to a democracy. Without an independent judiciary we are China.
That has validity in all cases except when there is a decision by referendum. If Parliament is to be the servant of the nation rather than its master, it can't overturn a referendum result.
And it won't.
Letting it vote again accepts that it would be legitimate for it to overturn the people's democratic decision, whether it chose to overturn it or not.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
You assume the electorate will vote based only on this issue. This was the same mistake Edward Heath made in 1974 when he asked who governs Britain. The electorate's reply was Harold Wilson.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
Rubbish. The decision yesterday was not about preventing us leaving the EU, it was about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent.
It was precisely about preventing Brexit.
If parliament has a right to vote on A50 then it has a right to vote No. If it votes no, then Brexit is frustrated. If it cannot practically vote No then its involvement is in effect unnecessary.
The decision yesterday was indeed "about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent". It is unfortunate that in making their case as they did, they advanced the principle that the people's elected representatives held primacy over the people themselves. In any case, parliament had already given its assent by inference. It is nonsense to suggest that authority was not granted in the combined effect of the passage of the 2015 Act and the referendum vote.
"There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people"
That should be the case.
But certain politicians don't agree.
And they will be subject to the will of the British people. Let's play through your scenario and assume for a moment that Parliament refuses to allow Article 50 to be triggered. What happens then? The government resigns, an election is called and the voters decide. And they will decide to return MPs who specifically state they will vote to trigger Article 50. There is no way that we can stay in the EU without voter approval. It just cannot happen. Unless there is a coup.
Mr. E, precisely. It's a legal victory on a technicality to try and frustrate and deny the referendum result.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
This is why I think the Government should have the appeal heard before further action, because although I don't think it will be overturned, I think it would be wise to see this process through to its logical conclusion and get a tighter reading of the constitutional position (as I think the current judgement is partially flawed and could be used a a precedent for other totally unrelated mischief).
Then, if it loses, as I suspect it will, it should draw the narrowest possible bill allowing it to begin negotiations through formal notice, and dare Parliament to vote it down - a confidence issue.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
Rubbish. The decision yesterday was not about preventing us leaving the EU
Oh, come off it.
It's a plain statement of fact. Read the judgment.
Given that the judgement is wrong, referring me to it is not a winning argument.
I see the learned 'three Quidder' has a better understanding of our constitution and its precedents than three people with a lifetime of expertise and learning.
I bow to your omniscience.
I want the people's decision respected and implemented. Don't you?
On one point of detail, David Herdson is simply wrong to say that all past referendums in the UK have been respected. If that were true, we wouldn't be getting directly elected mayors of Birmingham and Manchester.
Those are different roles from the ones that were voted on in 2011.
I'm sure that will be of great comfort to all those who expressed their view on the first proposal and who had no opportunity to express their view on the tweaks to the proposal that the government imposed on them.
FWIW, I agree that the Metro-mayors should have been put to a popular vote, as that of London originally was. But all the same, they're still different jobs and the ones envisaged in 2011 were not introduced when the referendums failed.
Mr. E, precisely. It's a legal victory on a technicality to try and frustrate and deny the referendum result.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
It's a legal victory because the government appears to have got it wrong. The reason the case was brought is sadly irrelevant.
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It is silent on the point but the convention, based on the old idea of Parliamentary sovereignty, is that it is still for Parliament to decide. That is the basis of the Court's decision.
And the court is wrong to so decide. Precedent doesn't necessarily stand for all time.
Based on what? Your posts are simply assertions, not arguments.
I'm very concerned about the current stance of the remainers. All these blithe assurances that a parliamentary vote on Article 50 will sail through doesn't ring true. In the light of the (not so) hidden agenda to prevent Brexit, then I think if they get anywhere near a vote, they'll amend the act to death
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue the government issued a leaflet saying something like "we will implement your decision" and then promised to invoke A50 immediately on the event of a Leave vote.
Its an utter indictment on Cameron that we're now in this mess.
That is true. Top marks for giving us a vote at last, but a big fat F for anything beyond that. He simply cannot have seen this was as big an issue as it is. This was going to be a quick gallivant around European capitals, get a quick deal, declare victory, canter to a twenty point win, and get on with the real stuff he wanted to do for the next three years till about 2019. He failed to see Europe was the "real stuff", and was going to require significant effort to get anywhere with a pretty tin eared Continent. I do have sympathy there, but he should've been prepared to walk away from the negotiations and really be prepared to campaign for Leave to have had much hope of concentrating minds in Brussels.
Great article Mr Herdson.
Extending royal prerogative willy nilly is tyranny, but the Constitution evolves. The Crown is sovereign in Parliament would've been true in 1265, with Crown, Lords, and Commons all in place as now, it's the balance between them and the introduction of more input from the people via voting that has changed. A specific referendum surely trumps the will of MP's (after all it's their boss getting a say), though I accept the design of the question was maybe not specific enough for the legal types ( F for Cameron).
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It is silent on the point but the convention, based on the old idea of Parliamentary sovereignty, is that it is still for Parliament to decide. That is the basis of the Court's decision.
And the court is wrong to so decide. Precedent doesn't necessarily stand for all time.
In fairness this was an inferior court bound by that old precedent. Given the way the Government fought the case and the submissions made their decision was perhaps inevitable. What is very surprising is the way the government framed their argument.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Improbable. The government coukd theoretically have changed its mind too, even if parliament were not involved.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
Actually it isn't obvious and your word play is wrong.
I agree with the judgement of the court. I may not like it but their reasoning to me seems absolutely sound and even though I am not a lawyer if I could find any flaw with their reasoning I would be shouting it to the high hills as I think the consequences are very severe for the country. I can't.
But one thing that cannot be denied is that those who took this case to court did not do so because they care about Parliamentary sovereignty. Anything but. They did so because they want to stop Brexit and ensure the UK remains in the EU. They have made that clear with their statements outside court and they will be no more satisfied if this runs its course and we do still activate Article 50.
The court was absolutely right in their judgement. But those bringing the case did so for one reason. To prevent Brexit.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
Rubbish. The decision yesterday was not about preventing us leaving the EU, it was about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent.
It was precisely about preventing Brexit.
If parliament has a right to vote on A50 then it has a right to vote No. If it votes no, then Brexit is frustrated. If it cannot practically vote No then its involvement is in effect unnecessary.
The decision yesterday was indeed "about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent". It is unfortunate that in making their case as they did, they advanced the principle that the people's elected representatives held primacy over the people themselves. In any case, parliament had already given its assent by inference. It is nonsense to suggest that authority was not granted in the combined effect of the passage of the 2015 Act and the referendum vote.
If Parliament votes against triggering Article 50 - which it won't - there will be an election. There is no route from here that sees us remaining in the EU without the explicit approval of voters. Thus, Parliamentary representatives do not hold primacy over the people. In the end, the people always decide (or, more precisely, the 37% who vote for the winning party do).
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
"It is somewhat presumptuous of someone who has no legal training and whose knowledge of constitutional processes and principles is merely that of an enthusiastic amateur (and, 20 years ago, an undergraduate), to tell the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls that they’re wrong"
Thank you, David, for MPs have constituency Associations to placate on the Tory side, and local electorates to consider on the Labour one. I have always believed that Tories despise voters but it is truly heart-warming to have one of their activists confirm it
Only because an MP has to be nominated first. There is no point worrying about the second hurdle when you're in such trouble with the first. My point was that a Labour MP would have much less trouble with their local party but yes, you're right: I should have said that local electorates would act on all parties.
The people were told that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. If anything, that is what they voted for. The government, therefore, failed to deliver on what it promised. If it had done as it promised, none of this would have happened. But it didn't; it lied. When a government lies, the only protection we have is our Parliament and the courts.
Yes we were told that and with the benefit of hindsight it is a pity that Cameron did not keep that promise even although he had not done any preparatory work or allowed it to be done. But he was right to acknowledge that the decision had been made. This is not a question for Parliament any more. Of course they still have several very important roles.
They can challenge and test the government's negotiating position. At least in theory they could direct the government to seek membership of the Customs Union for example. If the government does not obey they can dismiss it.
They also require to pass legislation to repeal the ECA and make provision for the thousands of other cases where EU law has become our law. They have autonomy and discretion as to how they do this.
But the decision to leave has been made.
Yep. And yesterday's judgment does not change that. But Cameron's lies show just how important it is that parliament holds the executive to account, especially when the rights of private citizens are at stake.
I agree but what has that got to do with the decision of the Court that Article 50 cannot be triggered without Parliamentary consent?
The executive cannot be given a free had to initiate a process that will remove rights from private citizens without the approval of Parliament. The executive cannot be trusted.
I loved that observation from Tim Bernard Lee the other morning. "Governments always want to trust themselves a little bit more than we should trust them."
It was said in the context of cyber security but it is of general application.
"We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms."
True.
However, as you know, the intention of this legal challenge is to subvert the will of the people. That is the problem.
If we decided to have a Referendum on restoring the death penalty, I would vote against. But it might pass. I would accept the decision.
I would not argue, for instance that the supporters had lied by saying that the conviction rate for murder had risen as a result of abolition. Or by saying that it was a result of potential murders thinking they could get away with it. I might suggest it was more likely due to juries being more likely to convict because the consequences of error were less serious, but that's interpretation.
Statistics don't lie, but the interpretation of statistics can be wrong. As Kipling observed ... 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.'
Remainers who moan about 'lies', that is the interpretation of facts they don't agree with, make fools of themselves.
But to dishonestly claim that it's all about openness and transparency is clearly absurd.
Mr Meeks has the candour to say why he's against the result. I give him credit for that. I wish others were so honest.
No, I don't know that the purpose of the challenge was to subvert the will of the people. The purpose of the challenge was to prevent the government from triggering Article 50 without the approval of Parliament. Parliament will approve the triggering of Article 50, but if it doesn't the government will resign, an election will be called and the governing party will win an increased majority. There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people.
It is entirely predictable that those massively in favour of the court case will also be in favour of MPs rejecting Article 50 or putting up so many barriers that it ensures May has the weakest of negotiating positions.
It is obvious what the Eurofanatics are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
Pursuing a bilateral or multilateral deal? So a soft Brexit then.
The Eurofanatics have been incredibly devious in their attempt to brand anything other than a "EU in all but name" arrangement as hard Brexit.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
Actually it isn't obvious and your word play is wrong.
I agree with the judgement of the court. I may not like it but their reasoning to me seems absolutely sound and even though I am not a lawyer if I could find any flaw with their reasoning I would be shouting it to the high hills as I think the consequences are very severe for the country. I can't.
But one thing that cannot be denied is that those who took this case to court did not do so because they care about Parliamentary sovereignty. Anything but. They did so because they want to stop Brexit and ensure the UK remains in the EU. They have made that clear with their statements outside court and they will be no more satisfied if this runs its course and we do still activate Article 50.
The court was absolutely right in their judgement. But those bringing the case did so for one reason. To prevent Brexit.
I don't agree. It was to prevent the terms of Brexit and the extent to which private British citizens lose rights they currently enjoy being decided exclusively by the executive. Some of those who funded the case may see it differently, but they are wrong. The case was the one that was made in court.
Brexit cannot be prevented if the people do not wish to prevent it. And that is absolutely as it should be.
The judiciary's decision in the court case is one hundred percent technically correct. And that is all they can do. I'm in no doubt the supreme court will uphold the decision. (And the ECJ will not overturn the decision of the supreme court however it goes if it is referred to them (I doubt it will be, particularly if HC is upheld)). Basically Cameron fucked up big time when he drafted the referendum (Or whoever did at the time).
The politics however are another matter. May risks the return of UKIP with a vengeance if she messes up from here.
Javid sounded in combative mood on Question Time last night.
Also it is perfectly proper that the Daily Mail should be allowed to print the headline, it is populist right wing nonsense of course - but nevertheless we live in a country with a free press, and have to take headlines we both do and don't like. If they were to publish the judges' addresses and phone numbers of course that would be another matter.
A splendid post. You are required reading when speaking your mind rather than talking up your own book ;-)
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It could have been made binding, but the choice was made not to.
It could have been made advisory, but the choice was made not to.
Being non-binding is however the default position.
We have had this argument before and your position doesn't stack up. As Tony says, this is a done deal now and there are more relevant issues to debate,
That is your opinion. But every convention was originally a new decision, and this is a rare chance to accept that the people as a whole, when they speak through a referendum, are superior to Parliament. There aren't many things more relevant than that principle.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
Actually it isn't obvious and your word play is wrong.
I agree with the judgement of the court. I may not like it but their reasoning to me seems absolutely sound and even though I am not a lawyer if I could find any flaw with their reasoning I would be shouting it to the high hills as I think the consequences are very severe for the country. I can't.
But one thing that cannot be denied is that those who took this case to court did not do so because they care about Parliamentary sovereignty. Anything but. They did so because they want to stop Brexit and ensure the UK remains in the EU. They have made that clear with their statements outside court and they will be no more satisfied if this runs its course and we do still activate Article 50.
The court was absolutely right in their judgement. But those bringing the case did so for one reason. To prevent Brexit.
I don't agree. It was to prevent the terms of Brexit and the extent to which private British citizens lose rights they currently enjoy being decided exclusively by the executive. Some of those who funded the case may see it differently, but they are wrong. The case was the one that was made in court.
Brexit cannot be prevented if the people do not wish to prevent it. And that is absolutely as it should be.
No that is why the Judges decided in the way they did. That is not why the case was brought.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
That's all very arcane, why not just get on with it and get the enabling act through. We want Brexit to succeed, without Parliament I don't see how this is possible in a practical rather than legal sense. The PM is quickly becoming Brownian in her ability to delay, obfuscate and ultimately fail.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
All Parliament can do - if it is so minded, which it isn't - is to delay the will of the people. In the end, the people always decide.
God, 2016 has been a horrible year for liberals, internationalists and the open-minded. Hillary winning will at least stop the anti-globalist, nationalist/left-nationalist juggernaut for a while. Trump wins? The horror film comes true, the world closes in upon itself.
Trump is not going to win - but Clinton is dreadful and will struggle
If she wins, openness wins. The world wins. People who look at the world beyond their own front door win.
Openness wins - well I suppose destroying 33000 e-mails counts as openness. I mean she was open about having done so.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people" which, whether by accident or design, captures the main point here. There is a difference between undemocratic and illegal.
Hypothetically, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that there may be circumstances in which parliament decided to take a different decision. For example, what if Russia had declared war and was at this very moment invading (the rest of) Europe? In such an unlikely scenario I suggest it would be almost certain that parliament would vote not to trigger the article.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
On the advisory nature of the referendum, again, the government didn't even try to argue that it was a source of authority for the decision to trigger. I suspect this will need to be repeated throughout the thread at regular intervals.
Yes it did. It's in the leaflet it sent in February, where it says something like "we will implement your decision." No doubt those with more technical skill than me can embed the preciese quote in a comment.
In the court case. Paragraph 105 refers. You're criticising the judges for not deciding the case on a basis that the government thought so hopeless that it didn't try to argue.
No, that reference is that the government conceded that the 2015 Act did not explicitly grant the power to invoke Article 50, which it doesn't.
You originally claimed that the government didn't argue that the referendum wasn't a source of authority, which is wrong, and is also different from claiming that the Act establishing the referendum was the sole and explicit source of authority, which is a point everyone accepts.
I'm very concerned about the current stance of the remainers. All these blithe assurances that a parliamentary vote on Article 50 will sail through doesn't ring true. In the light of the (not so) hidden agenda to prevent Brexit, then I think if they get anywhere near a vote, they'll amend the act to death
The list of Leave enemies is growing exponentially - The EU parliament, member countries of the EU, an Obama and then Clinton led USA, the 48% who voted Remain, the UK High Court, Scotland, the UK parliament.
What happens when Leave runs out of whipping boys?
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
They are - they confused UK law and international law.
More likely than an outright veto of triggering Article 50 more likely is the Commons debates and aamendments on the Article 50 triggering process coupled with long delays in the Lord's put back triggering Article 50 well beyond March annoying both Leave voters and the EU. If the Article 50 process is therefore still not approved by Parliament in late Spring then May could have no choice but to call an early election, that would see UKIP heavily target Remain backing Labour MPs in Leave areas as well as pro EU Tories.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
Quite. It reminds of a book I read decades ago called Outrage - a father murders his daughter's rapist who got off on a technicality. The jury returns a Not Guilty verdict despite all the evidence against him. There's a point where the Law becomes an ass in the eyes of The People. We're there now.
Only in the eyes of people who are asses.
The law is imperfect, and judges and juries make mistakes. Few people would disagree with that. But saying that the law is an ass based on reports on newspapers, tw*tter headlines or other social media is a very dangerous road to go down.
Court cases are more complex than newspaper summaries (often going for clickbait headlines) allow for.
snip If the Supreme Court upholds this, I can't see any alternative to a general election. That may be good news for UKIP and the Conservatives. I wonder if Labour have considered the implications? I suspect not, or that idiot Emily Thornberry might not have sounded quite so triumphalist this morning.
Yes, we need a general election. That is completely clear.
It will also be good news for Labour. It will mean getting rid of the utterly useless wrecker Corbyn his nasty gang of antisemitic hard left bullies three years early. Bring it on.
It is obvious what hard-line Brexiteers are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
Actually it isn't obvious and your word play is wrong.
I agree with the judgement of the court. I may not like it but their reasoning to me seems absolutely sound and even though I am not a lawyer if I could find any flaw with their reasoning I would be shouting it to the high hills as I think the consequences are very severe for the country. I can't.
But one thing that cannot be denied is that those who took this case to court did not do so because they care about Parliamentary sovereignty. Anything but. They did so because they want to stop Brexit and ensure the UK remains in the EU. They have made that clear with their statements outside court and they will be no more satisfied if this runs its course and we do still activate Article 50.
The court was absolutely right in their judgement. But those bringing the case did so for one reason. To prevent Brexit.
I don't agree. It was to prevent the terms of Brexit and the extent to which private British citizens lose rights they currently enjoy being decided exclusively by the executive. Some of those who funded the case may see it differently, but they are wrong. The case was the one that was made in court.
Brexit cannot be prevented if the people do not wish to prevent it. And that is absolutely as it should be.
No that is why the Judges decided in the way they did. That is not why the case was brought.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
Mr. E, precisely. It's a legal victory on a technicality to try and frustrate and deny the referendum result.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
It's a legal victory because the government appears to have got it wrong. The reason the case was brought is sadly irrelevant.
Indeed. I don't know why people have trouble making that distinction. Brexit can happen even if the judgement is upheld. If MPs or lords frustrate that, the ballot box will see them face consequences for that. And frankly, the question of whether parliament or government have this level of power is important. If an appeal says the government does that's fine, but the question is settled, and what does it matter the claimants have additional motivations? The judges were not concerned with when A50 was triggered or if it was a good idea, only if the gov had the power, as it should be.
Ever since the challenge sone people have discovered they don't like the quite fundamental point that under our system parliament is sovereign, not the people. We are presumably free to change that if we want, but it isn't a judge's job to ignore the law because of a referendum victory. If they got the law wrong, the Supreme Court will tell us. If they got it right, may has to put in more work to trigger Brexit. Is that really a terrible price to pay to have a system of constraints under the law?
I maintain may is happy with this outcome. She might still win on appeal, loads of people are angry over irrelevant things - Brexit has not been stymied after all - and if she loses the appeal she can always go for an election with the excuse she needs a parliament committed to Brexit, which she'd win.
Very interesting piece David. As I said yesterday the lawyers for the Government seem to have chosen the wrong battleground.
I do agree that the idea of popular sovereignty, that is sovereignty that is based in the will of the people, is an idea that is coming and gaining ever more theoretical support. Detailed submissions were made in support of the concept in the Supreme Court by the Scottish government in respect of the Named Person legislation very recently. Unfortunately, the Court did not feel it necessary to address the question in their judgment.
I think the Scottish Government was both right and wrong on the point. They are right in that it is simply inconceivable that Westminster could abolish Holyrood without the prior consent of the Scottish people. That is in the new Scotland Act but I think that was just recognition of a clear reality. Classical Constitutional theory says that is a nonsense because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament so the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed but I think we have moved beyond the point where that is a political impossibility into a situation where it is also a legal impossibility. Where they were wrong was to move from the proposition that they cannot be abolished to a proposition that they do not need to play by the rules.
There are strong shades of that argument in the present case. The Court dismissed the argument that Parliament had had a say in the Referendum Act because it said little about what was to happen in the event of a Leave vote and indicated that the vote was advisory.
But the Referendum Act *doesn't* indicate that the vote was advisory.
It is silent on the point but the convention, based on the old idea of Parliamentary sovereignty, is that it is still for Parliament to decide. That is the basis of the Court's decision.
And the court is wrong to so decide. Precedent doesn't necessarily stand for all time.
Based on what? Your posts are simply assertions, not arguments.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
But leaving the EU necessarily involves invoking A50 and on that matter, the people have given their representatives their instructions. The nature of the Brexit is for parliament and the government to sort out; the fact of Brexit is not. That is why there should be no requirement for parliamentary approval.
Having just heard Nick Clegg it's becomming clear that the new strategy of the REMAINERS is to say we respect the wishes of the winning LEAVERS but ensure that this involves minimal change. No one specified what BREXIT means so Clegg's position is perfectly reasonable.
May is being outmanoevered. She created a vaacum and the more influential forces behind REMAIN are filling that vaacum by ensuring nothing changes. It's becomming ever more likely that LEAVE will mean REMAIN in all but name.
The LEAVERS are in a cleft stick. They can't complain too much or people will start asking about the £350,000,000 for the NHS and other tall tales of their campaign
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
A flippant observation, but the cartoonists are revelling in having the (unflattering) features of our new Prime Minister to work with, rather than the bland podginess of Dave....
I'm very concerned about the current stance of the remainers. All these blithe assurances that a parliamentary vote on Article 50 will sail through doesn't ring true. In the light of the (not so) hidden agenda to prevent Brexit, then I think if they get anywhere near a vote, they'll amend the act to death
The list of Leave enemies is growing exponentially - The EU parliament, member countries of the EU, an Obama and then Clinton led USA, the 48% who voted Remain, the UK High Court, Scotland, the UK parliament.
What happens when Leave runs out of whipping boys?
Mr. E, precisely. It's a legal victory on a technicality to try and frustrate and deny the referendum result.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
It's a legal victory because the government appears to have got it wrong. The reason the case was brought is sadly irrelevant.
Indeed. I don't know why people have trouble making that distinction. Brexit can happen even if the judgement is upheld. If MPs or lords frustrate that, the ballot box will see them face consequences for that. And frankly, the question of whether parliament or government have this level of power is important. If an appeal says the government does that's fine, but the question is settled, and what does it matter the claimants have additional motivations? The judges were not concerned with when A50 was triggered or if it was a good idea, only if the gov had the power, as it should be.
Ever since the challenge sone people have discovered they don't like the quite fundamental point that under our system parliament is sovereign, not the people. We are presumably free to change that if we want, but it isn't a judge's job to ignore the law because of a referendum victory. If they got the law wrong, the Supreme Court will tell us. If they got it right, may has to put in more work to trigger Brexit. Is that really a terrible price to pay to have a system of constraints under the law?
I maintain may is happy with this outcome. She might still win on appeal, loads of people are angry over irrelevant things - Brexit has not been stymied after all - and if she loses the appeal she can always go for an election with the excuse she needs a parliament committed to Brexit, which she'd win.
And there you have it.
Except I am not so sure that May is as smart as you think she is.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
Rubbish. The decision yesterday was not about preventing us leaving the EU, it was about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent.
It was precisely about preventing Brexit.
If parliament has a right to vote on A50 then it has a right to vote No. If it votes no, then Brexit is frustrated. If it cannot practically vote No then its involvement is in effect unnecessary.
The decision yesterday was indeed "about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent". It is unfortunate that in making their case as they did, they advanced the principle that the people's elected representatives held primacy over the people themselves. In any case, parliament had already given its assent by inference. It is nonsense to suggest that authority was not granted in the combined effect of the passage of the 2015 Act and the referendum vote.
If Parliament votes against triggering Article 50 there will be an election.
The Daily Mail is taking full advantage of the abolition in the last Parliament of the offence of scandalising the judiciary.
I'm sure the law commission knew what it was doing; the government likewise.
Indeed. It had not been prosecuted since 1931 :-) , and judges regularly make claims for libel, so I wouldn't feel sorry for these judges for "lambs to the media slaughter" reasons.
"83. It could be argued that to abolish the offence in the expectation that judges will bring defamation actions is to shift the burden of enforcing respect for the processes of law from the public purse to the judges’ private resources. However, given the virtual disuse of the existing offence, any burden so shifted is likely to be small.
84. On balance we take the view that the offence is redundant and that abolishing it would leave no gap in the law. The absence of any successful prosecution since 1931 is in itself strong support for the view that it is unnecessary. We provisionally propose that the offence of scandalising the court should be abolished without replacement. Consultees are asked whether they agree. "
"There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people"
That should be the case.
But certain politicians don't agree.
And they will be subject to the will of the British people. Let's play through your scenario and assume for a moment that Parliament refuses to allow Article 50 to be triggered. What happens then? The government resigns, an election is called and the voters decide. And they will decide to return MPs who specifically state they will vote to trigger Article 50. There is no way that we can stay in the EU without voter approval. It just cannot happen. Unless there is a coup.
Exactly. It's absurd some of the anger on a point proper for the court to decide, which puts additional steps in the provpcess that's all. Nothing prevents May from getting what she wants, it just means in a different way fro before.
And it is a free country. People and MPs are free to try to ignore the referendum. If they try, I doubt it will end well for them.
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
They are - they confused UK law and international law.
You do realise that using phrases such as "so to do..." does not give us confidence that your legal knowledge is greater than that of the three most senior members of the UK judiciary.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
But leaving the EU necessarily involves invoking A50 and on that matter, the people have given their representatives their instructions. The nature of the Brexit is for parliament and the government to sort out; the fact of Brexit is not. That is why there should be no requirement for parliamentary approval.
The people instructed the government to invoke A50 the day after the referendum. That did not happen. Thus, the people have already given their instructions and they have been ignored. Thanks God we have a parliament to hold the government to account.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
snip.
Only in the eyes of people who are asses.
The law is imperfect, and judges and juries make mistakes. Few people would disagree with that. But saying that the law is an ass based on reports on newspapers, tw*tter headlines or other social media is a very dangerous road to go down.
Court cases are more complex than newspaper summaries (often going for clickbait headlines) allow for.
snip If the Supreme Court upholds this, I can't see any alternative to a general election. That may be good news for UKIP and the Conservatives. I wonder if Labour have considered the implications? I suspect not, or that idiot Emily Thornberry might not have sounded quite so triumphalist this morning.
Yes, we need a general election. That is completely clear.
It will also be good news for Labour. It will mean getting rid of the utterly useless wrecker Corbyn his nasty gang of antisemitic hard left bullies three years early. Bring it on.
Morning all,
The alternative to the judges decision would have set the precedent that Royal Prerogative, as acted upon by Ministers, could be used on domestic issues. This is a highly dangerous road to go on imho and is unconstitutional, exactly as the judges upheld.
The law is not an ass. The ruling was based on the settle will of the people and common law laid down over centuries about the power of the crown in Parliament.
It has upheld the rights of Parliament against an over mighty executive.
Why are Leavers suddenly against Parliamentary sovereignty?
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
That's all very arcane, why not just get on with it and get the enabling act through.
Because that would accept that Parliament is the boss of the people, not vice versa, and would be intrinsically anti-democratic. You might not care about this, of course, but I do.
On the advisory nature of the referendum, again, the government didn't even try to argue that it was a source of authority for the decision to trigger. I suspect this will need to be repeated throughout the thread at regular intervals.
Yes it did. It's in the leaflet it sent in February, where it says something like "we will implement your decision." No doubt those with more technical skill than me can embed the preciese quote in a comment.
I don't follow that argument. A government can only implement decisions if it commands a majority in parliament; requiring them to go through the process of passing a bill can hardly be seen as frustrating that commitment.
I fully understand the outrage - and there is no doubt that a very large number of people will share the feelings of the Barnsley residents on R4 this morning who were expressing bemusement that we are not already 'out'. May should have, and still must I think, ram a one line bill through the commons, and threaten the Lords with extinction if they meddle. Far better politics than a snap election.
Governments can implement decisions where they have the necessary authority. The primary question of the case is about whether they do have that authority. The secondary, related, question is what has given, or would give, them that authority.
The Daily Mail is taking full advantage of the abolition in the last Parliament of the offence of scandalising the judiciary.
I'm sure the law commission knew what it was doing; the government likewise.
Indeed. It had not been prosecuted since 1931 :-) , and judges regularly make claims for libel, so I wouldn't feel sorry for these judges for "lambs to the media slaughter" reasons.
"83. It could be argued that to abolish the offence in the expectation that judges will bring defamation actions is to shift the burden of enforcing respect for the processes of law from the public purse to the judges’ private resources. However, given the virtual disuse of the existing offence, any burden so shifted is likely to be small.
84. On balance we take the view that the offence is redundant and that abolishing it would leave no gap in the law. The absence of any successful prosecution since 1931191 is in itself strong support for the view that it is unnecessary. We provisionally propose that the offence of scandalising the court should be abolished without replacement. Consultees are asked whether they agree. "
It seems never to have crossed their minds that there had been no prosecutions because the papers were obeying the law and not because judges were perfect.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
"There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people"
That should be the case.
But certain politicians don't agree.
And they will be subject to the will of the British people. Let's play through your scenario and assume for a moment that Parliament refuses to allow Article 50 to be triggered. What happens then? The government resigns, an election is called and the voters decide. And they will decide to return MPs who specifically state they will vote to trigger Article 50. There is no way that we can stay in the EU without voter approval. It just cannot happen. Unless there is a coup.
Exactly. It's absurd some of the anger on a point proper for the court to decide, which puts additional steps in the provpcess that's all. Nothing prevents May from getting what she wants, it just means in a different way fro before.
And it is a free country. People and MPs are free to try to ignore the referendum. If they try, I doubt it will end well for them.
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
They are - they confused UK law and international law.
Fine. and that will be a good thing to know moving forward.
The people were told that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. If anything, that is what they voted for. The government, therefore, failed to deliver on what it promised. If it had done as it promised, none of this would have happened. But it didn't; it lied. When a government lies, the only protection we have is our Parliament and the courts.
Yes we were told that and with the benefit of hindsight it is a pity that Cameron did not keep that promise even although he had not done any preparatory work or allowed it to be done. But he was right to acknowledge that the decision had been made. This is not a question for Parliament any more. Of course they still have several very important roles.
They can challenge and test the government's negotiating position. At least in theory they could direct the government to seek membership of the Customs Union for example. If the government does not obey they can dismiss it.
They also require to pass legislation to repeal the ECA and make provision for the thousands of other cases where EU law has become our law. They have autonomy and discretion as to how they do this.
But the decision to leave has been made.
Yep. And yesterday's judgment does not change that. But Cameron's lies show just how important it is that parliament holds the executive to account, especially when the rights of private citizens are at stake.
I agree but what has that got to do with the decision of the Court that Article 50 cannot be triggered without Parliamentary consent?
The executive cannot be given a free had to initiate a process that will remove rights from private citizens without the approval of Parliament. The executive cannot be trusted.
In what way is 'being bound to the decision of the people' 'having a free hand'?
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
people get it. Some don't want to.
snip.
Only in the eyes of people who are asses.
The law is imperfect, and judges and juries make mistakes. Few people would disagree with that. But saying that the law is an ass based on reports on newspapers, tw*tter headlines or other social media is a very dangerous road to go down.
Court cases are more complex than newspaper summaries (often going for clickbait headlines) allow for.
snip If the Supreme Court upholds this, I can't see any alternative to a general election. That may be good news for UKIP and the Conservatives. I wonder if Labour have considered the implications? I suspect not, or that idiot Emily Thornberry might not have sounded quite so triumphalist this morning.
Yes, we need a general election. That is completely clear.
It will also be good news for Labour. It will mean getting rid of the utterly useless wrecker Corbyn his nasty gang of antisemitic hard left bullies three years early. Bring it on.
Morning all,
The alternative to the judges decision would have set the precedent that Royal Prerogative, as acted upon by Ministers, could be used on domestic issues. This is a highly dangerous road to go on imho and is unconstitutional, exactly as the judges upheld.
The law is not an ass. The ruling was based on the settle will of the people and common law laid down over centuries about the power of the crown in Parliament.
It has upheld the rights of Parliament against an over mighty executive.
Why are Leavers suddenly against Parliamentary sovereignty?
Because they are against all sovereignty, all authority, except their own. They rergard 48% of the electorate as traitors...
Mr. E, precisely. It's a legal victory on a technicality to try and frustrate and deny the referendum result.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
It's a legal victory because the government appears to have got it wrong. The reason the case was brought is sadly irrelevant.
Indeed. I don't know why people have trouble making that distinction. Brexit can happen even if the judgement is upheld. If MPs or lords frustrate that, the ballot box will see them face consequences for that. And frankly, the question of whether parliament or government have this level of power is important. If an appeal says the government does that's fine, but the question is settled, and what does it matter the claimants have additional motivations? The judges were not concerned with when A50 was triggered or if it was a good idea, only if the gov had the power, as it should be.
Ever since the challenge sone people have discovered they don't like the quite fundamental point that under our system parliament is sovereign, not the people. We are presumably free to change that if we want, but it isn't a judge's job to ignore the law because of a referendum victory. If they got the law wrong, the Supreme Court will tell us. If they got it right, may has to put in more work to trigger Brexit. Is that really a terrible price to pay to have a system of constraints under the law?
I maintain may is happy with this outcome. She might still win on appeal, loads of people are angry over irrelevant things - Brexit has not been stymied after all - and if she loses the appeal she can always go for an election with the excuse she needs a parliament committed to Brexit, which she'd win.
And there you have it.
Except I am not so sure that May is as smart as you think she is.
So far May has emerged the victor (victrix) of all the games of four-dimensional chess going. So perhaps she thought out the steps through to a 2017 election in advance, and hired a crap team of lawyers to argue the government's case, just to make sure? Certainly it would explain why she wants to appeal when most are advising the contrary.
But she may of course just be moving the pieces around randomly whilst looking inscrutable.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
On one point of detail, David Herdson is simply wrong to say that all past referendums in the UK have been respected. If that were true, we wouldn't be getting directly elected mayors of Birmingham and Manchester.
Those are different roles from the ones that were voted on in 2011.
I'm sure that will be of great comfort to all those who expressed their view on the first proposal and who had no opportunity to express their view on the tweaks to the proposal that the government imposed on them.
FWIW, I agree that the Metro-mayors should have been put to a popular vote, as that of London originally was. But all the same, they're still different jobs and the ones envisaged in 2011 were not introduced when the referendums failed.
Disagree. And also disagree that the London system should ever have been put to a referendum. Thankfully it was won. But the London metro mayoralty should have been imposed in the same way that the Manchester and Liverpool metro mayoralties have been. Local government reorganisation should not require referenda. Mrs T didn't seek the views of Londoners when she abolished the GLC!
Comments
.. and as for sovereignty of Parliament, its risible.. Brown inflicted the Lisbon treaty upon us without a vote, Maggie ditto re Maastricht.. at every step the EU has been inflicted on the British people, and they, via the referendum, said enough is enough, and I understand that.
The fact that technically the referendum simply was legally advisory.
The colorally that simply must follow is that the first bit of paper I got through my door WAS in fact a campaign piece, (Obviously it was politicially) - but also legally and all that follows.
It is obvious what the Eurofanatics are up to. It is just a shame they could not admit to it.
Oh...
I bow to your omniscience.
"There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people"
That should be the case.
But certain politicians don't agree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37866091
For those unaware, Schumacher was at Ferrari when Brawn was the top engineer there, so they know one another very well. I'd guess he has permission from the family to say this, and that it's accurate.
FOP CALL **** 30 MINS **** FOP CALL **** 30 MINS **** FOP CALL **** 30 MINS
"The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Parliament never amended the Bill to make it not the final say.
See, two can play that game.
But it doesn't get us very far.
As others have noted, there are already efforts to conflate Article 50 and the nature of the deal we negotiate so that the Government gets painted into a corner to try and alter public opinion against leaving.
We have had this argument before and your position doesn't stack up. As Tony says, this is a done deal now and there are more relevant issues to debate,
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
If parliament has a right to vote on A50 then it has a right to vote No. If it votes no, then Brexit is frustrated. If it cannot practically vote No then its involvement is in effect unnecessary.
The decision yesterday was indeed "about ensuring that the executive cannot ride roughshod over the elected representatives of the people and remove rights from private citizens without Parliamentary consent". It is unfortunate that in making their case as they did, they advanced the principle that the people's elected representatives held primacy over the people themselves. In any case, parliament had already given its assent by inference. It is nonsense to suggest that authority was not granted in the combined effect of the passage of the 2015 Act and the referendum vote.
Then, if it loses, as I suspect it will, it should draw the narrowest possible bill allowing it to begin negotiations through formal notice, and dare Parliament to vote it down - a confidence issue.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/794440057910427648
Great article Mr Herdson.
Extending royal prerogative willy nilly is tyranny, but the Constitution evolves. The Crown is sovereign in Parliament would've been true in 1265, with Crown, Lords, and Commons all in place as now, it's the balance between them and the introduction of more input from the people via voting that has changed. A specific referendum surely trumps the will of MP's (after all it's their boss getting a say), though I accept the design of the question was maybe not specific enough for the legal types ( F for Cameron).
I agree with the judgement of the court. I may not like it but their reasoning to me seems absolutely sound and even though I am not a lawyer if I could find any flaw with their reasoning I would be shouting it to the high hills as I think the consequences are very severe for the country. I can't.
But one thing that cannot be denied is that those who took this case to court did not do so because they care about Parliamentary sovereignty. Anything but. They did so because they want to stop Brexit and ensure the UK remains in the EU. They have made that clear with their statements outside court and they will be no more satisfied if this runs its course and we do still activate Article 50.
The court was absolutely right in their judgement. But those bringing the case did so for one reason. To prevent Brexit.
It was said in the context of cyber security but it is of general application.
The Eurofanatics have been incredibly devious in their attempt to brand anything other than a "EU in all but name" arrangement as hard Brexit.
General election and Tory landslide as soon as possible.
Brexit cannot be prevented if the people do not wish to prevent it. And that is absolutely as it should be.
Hypothetically, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that there may be circumstances in which parliament decided to take a different decision. For example, what if Russia had declared war and was at this very moment invading (the rest of) Europe? In such an unlikely scenario I suggest it would be almost certain that parliament would vote not to trigger the article.
You originally claimed that the government didn't argue that the referendum wasn't a source of authority, which is wrong, and is also different from claiming that the Act establishing the referendum was the sole and explicit source of authority, which is a point everyone accepts.
What happens when Leave runs out of whipping boys?
Ever since the challenge sone people have discovered they don't like the quite fundamental point that under our system parliament is sovereign, not the people. We are presumably free to change that if we want, but it isn't a judge's job to ignore the law because of a referendum victory. If they got the law wrong, the Supreme Court will tell us. If they got it right, may has to put in more work to trigger Brexit. Is that really a terrible price to pay to have a system of constraints under the law?
I maintain may is happy with this outcome. She might still win on appeal, loads of people are angry over irrelevant things - Brexit has not been stymied after all - and if she loses the appeal she can always go for an election with the excuse she needs a parliament committed to Brexit, which she'd win.
FOP CALL **** 10 MINS **** FOP CALL **** 10 MINS **** FOP CALL **** 10 MINS
May is being outmanoevered. She created a vaacum and the more influential forces behind REMAIN are filling that vaacum by ensuring nothing changes. It's becomming ever more likely that LEAVE will mean REMAIN in all but name.
The LEAVERS are in a cleft stick. They can't complain too much or people will start asking about the £350,000,000 for the NHS and other tall tales of their campaign
Time to slaughter the sacred cow.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
Except I am not so sure that May is as smart as you think she is.
"83. It could be argued that to abolish the offence in the expectation that judges will
bring defamation actions is to shift the burden of enforcing respect for the
processes of law from the public purse to the judges’ private resources. However,
given the virtual disuse of the existing offence, any burden so shifted is likely to
be small.
84. On balance we take the view that the offence is redundant and that abolishing it
would leave no gap in the law. The absence of any successful prosecution since
1931 is in itself strong support for the view that it is unnecessary.
We provisionally propose that the offence of scandalising the court should
be abolished without replacement. Consultees are asked whether they
agree. "
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/cp207_Scandalising_the_Court.pdf
And it is a free country. People and MPs are free to try to ignore the referendum. If they try, I doubt it will end well for them.
The alternative to the judges decision would have set the precedent that Royal Prerogative, as acted upon by Ministers, could be used on domestic issues. This is a highly dangerous road to go on imho and is unconstitutional, exactly as the judges upheld.
The law is not an ass. The ruling was based on the settle will of the people and common law laid down over centuries about the power of the crown in Parliament.
It has upheld the rights of Parliament against an over mighty executive.
Why are Leavers suddenly against Parliamentary sovereignty?
Clinton 43.4 .. Trump 46.9
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
But she may of course just be moving the pieces around randomly whilst looking inscrutable.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
ARSE4US FOP CALLS :
FLORIDA - CLINTON
OHIO - STILL TCTC
PENNSYLVANIA - CLINTON
HILLARY CLINTON IS THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
.......................................................................................................
Battleground States Calls For Trump :
Iowa .. Texas .. Georgia .. Utah .. Alaska
..........................................................
Battleground States Calls For Clinton :
New Hampshire .. Pennsylvania .. Michigan .. Wisconsin .. Florida .. Colorado .. Nevada
..........................................................
Battleground States Still Too Close To Call :
North Carolina .. Ohio .. Arizona
...........................................................
Electoral College :
Clinton 308 .. Trump 186 .. TCTC 44
MAP :
http://www.270towin.com/maps/AWDVB