Theresa May's U turn

[unbeliever]

Yet judges who are experts on our constitution disagree with you. The referendum was not legally binding and as a result of a stupidly ill-thought referendum we are in this mess. We would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better off if the referendum had been made legally binding in the first place with a mechanism for ensuring the outcome happened in a decent timescale. As the referendum was solely a pathetic power struggle between Cameron and Johnson with the former being arrogant enough to believe he'd never lose we are now in a constitutional mess with no clear 'win'.

 

All totally avoidable and I seriously hope future governments take note.

 

The MPs followed precedent on this matter. The High court decided otherwise. The "Advisory" nature of the referendum is a technicality in place by tradition that no MP of good conscience would attempt to exploit.

We'll have to see who was mistaken when the Supreme court reaches its verdict.

[sgtkate]

The MPs followed precedent on this matter. The High court decided otherwise. The "Advisory" nature of the referendum is a technicality in place by tradition that no MP of good conscience would attempt to exploit.

We'll have to see who was mistaken when the Supreme court reaches its verdict.

 

Regardless of our positions about Brexit, do you genuinely think it's ok for a government to change something significant about our we most accept to be our constitution (not written blah blah) without seeking parliamentary approval?

 

As I say, the referendum should have been legally binding in the first place with parliamentary approval then we wouldn't be having this debate.

[L00b]

The vote to hold the referendum, which passed 6:1, was a law passed to hold a referendum to advise the executive as to whether to leave the EU.

Correct. And the executive was so advised that the UK wants to leave. No more, no less.

The pretence that parliament has not been consulted or has been in any way bypassed on this is nonsense.

The HC case and judgement, and its appeal before the Supreme Court, is not about Parliamentary approval of the EURA 2015.

 

It is about the government's wholesale bypassing of Parliament when handling the referendum outcome, i.e. how to leave.

 

But you knew that already.

<...>

 

As I say, the referendum should have been legally binding in the first place with parliamentary approval then we wouldn't be having this debate.

Wouldn't have made any difference to the issue. As we're in the realm of hindsight here, what should have happened, was the drafting and insertion of clauses in the EURA 2015 governing "what happens after the vote, depending on how the vote goes".

 

As it is, there are none. None whatsoever. Which is unsurprising, since when things work as normal (per the last hundreds of years), the UK government formulates policy ("the plan for how to leave", in context) and then runs it past Parliament for approval. Until the HC case, May was mushrooming Parliament. All the HC judgement has done, is force her to toe the standard 'constitutional line' (due process) in the UK.

 

If anyone's so fond of British-style "democracy" and "sovereignty", you'd expect them to hope that (and have no problem whatsoever with-) the SC affirming the HC judgement.

 

But then, idiocy. And I'll refer you to Einstein's famous quote in that respect

Edited December 8, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Regardless of our positions about Brexit, do you genuinely think it's ok for a government to change something significant about our we most accept to be our constitution (not written blah blah) without seeking parliamentary approval?

 

As I say, the referendum should have been legally binding in the first place with parliamentary approval then we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

A legally binding referendum would have been most unusual.

If the executive did not already have the power under the royal prerogative to activate article 50 then surely the referendum act gave it to them.

At any rate the actual withdrawal from the EU takes place not with the activation of article 50, but with the repeal of the 1972 act and that will most certainly be a job for parliament.

Parliament can't make an honest case that this is being done without them. They voted for the referendum and will have the job of performing the repeal. Going to the EU council and saying in a clear voice "we're leaving" is quite obviously the PM's job.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 10:56 ----------

 

Correct. And the executive was so advised that the UK wants to leave. No more, no less.

The HC case and judgement, and its appeal before the Supreme Court, is not about Parliamentary approval of the EURA 2015.

 

It is about the government's wholesale bypassing of Parliament when handling the referendum outcome, i.e. how to leave.

 

But you knew that already.

 

 

It is not necessary, on any level, for the matter of how to leave to be decided at this point. The government is well aware that they will require a vote in parliament to repeal the 1972 act and that they must carry the will of parliament to approve whatever they negotiate.

There is no question of parliament being bypassed in any way, at any point, on any level.

This is about remainer hold-outs messing with us.

[sgtkate]

A legally binding referendum would have been most unusual.

If the executive did not already have the power under the royal prerogative to activate article 50 then surely the referendum act gave it to them.

At any rate the actual withdrawal from the EU takes place not with the activation of article 50, but with the repeal of the 1972 act and that will most certainly be a job for parliament.

Parliament can't make an honest case that this is being done without them. They voted for the referendum and will have the job of performing the repeal. Going to the EU council and saying in a clear voice "we're leaving" is quite obviously the PM's job.

 

Hate doing this, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. We are arguing a point based in fineries of law that neither of us are totally qualified to know. We shall see what the supreme court says, but bearing in mind the MPs have already given agreement to triggering article 50 it all seems a little pointless. Why May didn't just ask parliament weeks ago is still beyond me, except that she doesn't actually want Brexit herself either so is hoping for some kind of legal hold-up/reprieve.

[unbeliever]

Hate doing this, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. We are arguing a point based in fineries of law that neither of us are totally qualified to know. We shall see what the supreme court says, but bearing in mind the MPs have already given agreement to triggering article 50 it all seems a little pointless. Why May didn't just ask parliament weeks ago is still beyond me, except that she doesn't actually want Brexit herself either so is hoping for some kind of legal hold-up/reprieve.

 

Oh no it's not over. This vote in parliament, it will be argued, is not good enough. If the supreme court upholds the position of the high court, a bill will have to be brought before parliament and a law passed to empower the government to activate article 50.

The liberal democrats and other will try to amend it to force us to stay in the single market, the SNP will try all sorts of nonsense. The Lords may debate it and send it back to the commons 3 times before they're overruled. It may be a giant mess which could drag on for months.

[sgtkate]

Oh no it's not over. This vote in parliament, it will be argued, is not good enough. If the supreme court upholds the position of the high court, a bill will have to be brought before parliament and a law passed to empower the government to activate article 50.

The liberal democrats and other will try to amend it to force us to stay in the single market, the SNP will try all sorts of nonsense. The Lords may debate it and send it back to the commons 3 times before they're overruled. It may be a giant mess which could drag on for months.

 

I refer you back to my point about future government's taking note about the dangers of non-legally binding votes...

[unbeliever]

I refer you back to my point about future government's taking note about the dangers of non-legally binding votes...

 

Wouldn't have helped.

As L00b says, the only thing which might've averted this would be if the bill had contained instructions to government as to specifically how to go about Brexit in the event of a vote to leave. That would also have been unusual, and would be rather difficult to frame, but I think just about possible.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 11:21 ----------

 

You know I voted for AV. I would have been similarly furious if MPs had tried to do something other than promptly implement AV if we had won that one.

 

I did not however attempt to argue that we should still implement AV even though we lost. Despite the fact that I thought that many of the criticisms of AV were untrue. I pretty much shut up about the whole matter since. I only bring it up from time to time to make points like this.

[sgtkate]

Wouldn't have helped.

As L00b says, the only thing which might've averted this would be if the bill had contained instructions to government as to specifically how to go about Brexit in the event of a vote to leave. That would also have been unusual, and would be rather difficult to frame, but I think just about possible.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 11:21 ----------

 

You know I voted for AV. I would have been similarly furious if MPs had tried to do something other than promptly implement AV if we had won that one.

 

I did not however attempt to argue that we should still implement AV even though we lost. Despite the fact that I thought that many of the criticisms of AV were untrue. I pretty much shut up about the whole matter since. I only bring it up from time to time to make points like this.

 

Hope that isn't aimed at me? While I didn't want Brexit I accept it fully albeit grumpily.

[L00b]

It is not necessary, on any level, for the matter of how to leave to be decided at this point. The government is well aware that they will require a vote in parliament to repeal the 1972 act and that they must carry the will of parliament to approve whatever they negotiate.

There is no question of parliament being bypassed in any way, at any point, on any level.

This is about remainer hold-outs messing with us.

What, messing like yesterday's voting result in Parliament?

 

 

Few if any MPs were ever going to vote against Brexit per se.

 

But yesterday's session topic and vote would not have happened without the High Court challenge.

 

And as to the future influence of Parliament on the form that Brexit eventually takes, well [provided that the SC affirms the HC judgement] that will only be sovereignty and democracy in action, fully according to longstanding British constitutional precepts. Now, you haven't got a problem that, right?