Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The government should resign if the Courts prevent it from inv

Why should an advisory referendum be binding? That is the question at the heart of the government’s determination to invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. It’s a difficult – but not impossible – case to argue, and one I will argue.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cameron should have built in the consent mechanism into the Referendum bill. He didn't. Why? Because losing the referendum wasn't part of the plan.
So we are now unpicking this constitutional mess. It sits amongst a host of messes caused by one simple fact. The govt did not prepare at all for the Leave outcome.
Where do we go from here?
A general election. But one that answers the question; What does "Brexit means Brexit" mean?
Each party sets out their priorities. The new parliament can then trigger A50 with a clear mandate to negotiate a specific exit and set the path for Britain. Hard, Soft, Left, Right - Whatever.
The trick will be to somehow conduct a meaningful campaign/debate outside the toxic mess we find ourselves in today.
The big question, is this possible? Or are we doomed to talk about "traitors" and descend into yet further chaos.
It's true that passing the bill will require discussion and scrutiny and make it harder to conceal bad ideas and policy vacuums, but that's exactly what the constitution is supposed to encourage.
1) No one said this ref was "only advisory" during campaign
2) Parliament voted with large majority for the people to decide.(they did)
3) Cameron said he would trigger A50 if he lost
Other than that
Tickety boo
The only way of making this headache go away could be a general election
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37861456
Meanwhile Ladbrokes odds on GE in 2017 now 7:4
I think May will 'keep calm & carry on' - if she fails in the Supreme Court introduce a one line bill and make clear any amendments will trigger a GE....as Prof Goodwin observes: It's like being forced to show your poker rival one of your cards. EU will be laughing their socks off. Bring on early GE?
Cheers Mr Herdson, an interesting and thought provoking take on yesterday’s court decision.
Speaking personally, tabling an Article 50 Authorisation Bill now is much the safer option, although this will inevitably delay triggering A50 as it battles its way through to the supreme court and beyond, it is after all only delayed. What you appear to be proposing is a nuclear option, fraught with the danger we might never see the will of the majority implemented. Save the battle for constitutional rights of a sovereign people for another day.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates
The courts are right, and just applying the rule of law to an Executive that all too often abused the power of perogative. A recent example would be signing CETA without consulting parliament.
Perhaps he already has!
The government isn't just acting on a whim, in wanting to exercise A50. It held a referendum on the basis that A50 would be invoked, if Leave won. Parliament could have voted against holding a referendum, but it chose not to. Granted, Remain-supporting MP's never expected to lose, and had not thought through the implications of losing, but that can be no excuse for trying to frustrate the invocation of A50 now.
The case was brought to prevent Brexit, not to defend Parliamentary sovereignty in the abstract.
Yes. Suck it up, loser.
Reining in the power of perogative so that Parliament is sovereign is a protection that the rule of law gives us all.
An A50 bill would pass easily. The debate will strengthen rather than weaken the governments position as it will demonstrate that Parliament backs the position. It stops backsliding.
It is possible to change bad laws, but a system that simply ignores inconvenient laws is open to tyranny.
I'll start by ignoring the law that prevents me taking things from shops without paying. That OK with you, hun?
Apart from giving the suppliers of blood pressure medication a welcome fillip I doubt very much has changed.
Either the Supreme Court will look at this and go 'ooooh, too political' and back the government, or will back the lower court, in which case the government will bulldoze a one line bill through both houses. The Upper House will tamper with it at their mortal peril (and have made an unforgiving enemy in Mrs May once this local difficulty is out of the way) and we'll still trigger Article 50 by the end of March.
Its the Remain voters still in Denial I feel sorriest for - as John Cleese observed in Clockwise 'It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/five-stages-grief-most-remain-voters-are-stuck-den/
Nowhere does David suggest that the government should break the law.
I tend to think the court's decision is probably right from a legal perspective, but wrong from a moral perspective (if morality should have anything to do with the law).
As someone who thinks it is best if Brexit is sorted out as quickly as possible, I uttered a 'FFS!' in the car when I heard the news. The decision may uphold notional concepts of sovereignty; but it will also harm the country.
Oh, and the Mail's headline is a disgrace.
Once that is appreciated, the question is not whether the referendum decided the matter legally but who legally has the power to start the process of leaving the EU. The government was arguing in effect that it could do so without ever getting Parliament's approval or even consulting it.
This question is more important than Brexit. The executive needs to be subject to proper controls. In a sane world newspapers would applaud a court ruling upholding that.
As for a general election, Theresa May should have called one straight away. The courts may be doing her a favour, forcing her to do what in any case was in her own best interests. Though running on "who governs Britain?" is a risky strategy. It might well be that the electorate are interested in other questions as well, as Ted Heath found out.
Who's in denial now?
(*) I know this word is one of PB's verboten terms. I must use it frequently, as my two-year old has started using it instead of 'Okay' ...
It's possibly the worst possible reason for voting to leave the EU, but what the referendum has done is to reveal just how far apart the people and the ruling classes are.
A one line bill is fine.
IANAL, but it seems that courts often have to weigh competing legislation and concepts when making a judgement. It is perfectly possible for them to get that balance wrong.
UK seats, obviously.
So, democracy or oligarchy - what's it to be?
Meanwhile the Remoaners are doing exactly what the establishment have done for decades - sneering at the little people and their views. This is an awful state of affairs brought about by people that are used to winning not being able to accept a loss.
Brexit means Brexit.
(I voted Remain btw.)
In essence, the wealthy upper-middle class elite - which dominates politics and the media, through a position of entrenched and often hereditary privilege - has had everything its own way for as long as most of its members have been alive. The Brexit decision was the first time in decades that a major national poll pitted the majority of middle class opinion against a majority of working class opinion, AND that the working class side of the argument won. Finally, the privileged are having to do what the disadvantaged have been obliged to suffer for decades, and watching as something that they really value is taken away because of other people's political priorities.
The refuseniks amongst the ruling class are enraged and very bitter at being thwarted by the plebs, and are determined to reverse the result - hence the wilful denial of the legitimacy and binding nature of the vote itself, the complaints about its narrowness (as if they would give a damn about that if Remain had polled 52%,) and above all the abuse and denigration of Leave voters. Fundamentally, they want the verdict of the majority of those who voted in a fair contest set aside, and the will of the minority imposed regardless - because they think that all voters are equal but some are more equal than others. And democracy is only tolerable for so long as it keeps on delivering results that they feel comfortable with.
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/vile-daily-mail-changes-headline-after-attacking-brexit-ruling-judge-for-being-gay/
Judges apply the law, and I am pleased that they are a restraint on an overpowered executive.
Yes, there will need to be a vote on the final treaty as dozens, even hundreds of laws and plans be affected by that. But that's two years off at least, maybe more.
I wonder if the judges simply didn't quite understand the processes involved, in which case the Attorney General has clearly made a mess of things.
Britain Elects @britainelects 7h7 hours ago
Fair Oak & Horton Heath (Eastleigh) result:
LDEM: 46.0% (+6.8)
CON: 30.7% (+3.7)
UKIP: 15.9% (-6.5)
LAB: 7.3% (-4.1)
Britain Elects @britainelects 7h7 hours ago
Liberal Democrat HOLD Fair Oak & Horton Heath (Eastleigh).
Britain Elects @britainelects 7h7 hours ago
Longlevens (Gloucester) result:
CON: 46.2% (+3.7)
LDEM: 36.9% (+23.7)
LAB: 9.7% (-8.2)
UKIP: 7.2% (-6.6)
Britain Elects @britainelects 7h7 hours ago
Kingswood with Burgh Heath (Reigate) result:
CON: 73.3% (+6.6)
UKIP: 13.5% (-8.1)
LAB: 8.4% (-3.3)
GRN: 4.8% (+4.8)
Britain Elects @britainelects 7h7 hours ago
Burnley Central East (Lancashire) result:
LAB: 68.9% (+10.7)
LDEM: 14.1% (-1.4)
UKIP: 12.7% (-6.7)
GRN: 4.3% (+4.3)
Britain Elects @britainelects 8h8 hours ago
Rainham Central (Medway) result:
CON: 61.1% (+9.9)
UKIP: 16.4% (-5.2)
LAB: 13.5% (-2.9)
LDEM: 5.8% (+5.8)
GRN: 2.6% (-5.2)
EDEM: 0.6% (+0.6)
As for the issue itself. The LEAVE campaign was based on the logo 'TAKE CONTROL'. If insisisting our own parliament shoud hae primacy over the Royal Perogative isn't 'TAKING CONTROL' then what is.
We live, thankfully, in a parliamentary democracy. It is right and proper that Parliament should debate important issues that affect us all. The judges are quite right and proper to point this out.
I'm glad that our unwritten constitution works in a way that ensures Prime Minister and Government are regulated by law. Heaven help us if this was not the case.
I don't suppose for a moment tha the A50 vote will not be passed. But at least the Government can now be held to account for its objectives in leading us in that direction.
I agree with you. Election.
FWIW, I think that the government should both hold a debate on broad Brexit objectives prior to negotiations beginning, with a vote in the Commons to approve that stance, and a second vote to agree the final terms agreed with rEU. In both cases, the consequences of voting down the government should be clear.
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.
I truly believe that this activity is meant to slow, amend, and finally prevent any meaningful exit from the EU and find it scandalous that some of our elected representatives are so arrogant think they have the right to frustrate the will of the people
Given that Leave was a vague idea and not a policy package, it's right that Parliament should debate the terms of our departure. And that's really all there is to it. Re: the legal ins and outs, given the government itself didn't even try to argue that the referendum was legally binding, what other outcome was really likely?
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/vile-daily-mail-changes-headline-after-attacking-brexit-ruling-judge-for-being-gay/
I think parliament should have the final say in rubber stamping Brexit. The MPs will vote to invoke Article 50, as will the Lords.... and Brexit will be hugely strengthened.
May was trying to circumvent parliament (the kind of move Blair would make). She was wrong strategically to do so because by obtaining a seal of approval in both houses she'll have a stronger mandate.
Precisely. This is exactly why there should be a Parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50. Brexit means Brexit, but it is not the executive that should get to decide, it is the people through their elected representatives. It would be an outrage if Parliament did not vote in favour of triggering Article 50 and it won't. But it would be equally outrageous if our elected representatives were not allowed to define what Brexit means.
No one here is suggesting the government should disobey the High Court.
The purpose of the referendum for the people was to make a decision on whether the UK should stay or leave the European Union.
Maybe the LEAVE people should calm down. It will delay ART 50 for a few months so the Govt can sort more of their shit out. The papers over-reaction is of real interest. Why do they want it done asap without consideration?
Thanks for the article, BTW.
We're still leaving the EU and Article 50 will still be triggered in March.....and Remainers in denial have been thrown a worthless lifeline.....