Theresa May's U turn

[unbeliever]

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?

 

Sovereignty is optimally of the people. Parliament exercises it on their behalf. For parliament to overrule the people is as much of a failure of sovereignty as if the ECJ or Commission overrule parliament.

The vote yesterday puts political pressure on the remainer hold-outs but it doesn't actually resolve anything.

Parliament can and has debated and voted on all manner of Brexit related matters and will continue to do so. The court case does not affect this.

Edited December 8, 2016 by unbeliever

[L00b]

Sovereignty is optimally of the people. Parliament exercises it on their behalf.

Not really on-point, and you may be mistaking the moral principle of popular sovereignty for the political principle(/reality) that is parliamentary sovereignty: in practice, in the UK, the sovereignty of Parliament is absolute. MPs make and break the laws and hold the executive and judiciary powers to task (-through making and breaking the laws), not their constituents.

For parliament to overrule the people is as much of a failure of sovereignty as if the ECJ or Commission overrule parliament.

See above.

Parliament can and has debated and voted on all manner of Brexit related matters and will continue to do so.

Examples?

[unbeliever]

Not really on-point, and you may be mistaking the moral principle of popular sovereignty for the political principle(/reality) that is parliamentary sovereignty: in practice, in the UK, the sovereignty of Parliament is absolute. MPs make and break the laws and hold the executive and judiciary powers to task (-through making and breaking the laws), not their constituents.

See above.

Examples?

 

Parliamentary sovereignty is a proxy which is revokable every 5 years. They also handed it back to the people in calling the referendum.

 

Parliament has debated Brexit almost every day it has been in session since June.

[Gamston]

No it isn't. For about the hundredth time, I simply to want to live in a country where it's own government follows the laws. Brexit isn't going to be blocked, I don't even want it to be, I just don't want the government (of any colour not a Tory pop) believing they can avoid legal controls and push through things they want without getting a vote for it. That is all.

I accept you personally wish to see the democratic wishes of the people carried out, but sadly there seem to be too many people out there, who don't have honourable intentions an are hoping the current issue will block or dilute the wishes of honest British citizens being carried out.

 

The wording of the legislation, which was required for David Cameron to honour his pledge and give the UK an EU referendum was obviously poorly phrased and open to misterpretation, by sore losers who don't really have the best interest of our country at heart. What is happening here, is sore losers are using the same techniques and looking for loopholes a lawyer may use for a guilty motorist to escape justice.

 

The UK electorate voted for BREXIT and it is up to the current Government to carry out the democratic wishes of the people without obstruction. Mrs May has already started the process of implementing current EU laws into English law for when we leave the EU. Then rightly, if any changes in these former EU laws are proposed, then Parliament will debate and vote in coming years before any changes are made.

[unbeliever]

No it isn't. For about the hundredth time, I simply to want to live in a country where it's own government follows the laws. Brexit isn't going to be blocked, I don't even want it to be, I just don't want the government (of any colour not a Tory pop) believing they can avoid legal controls and push through things they want without getting a vote for it. That is all.

 

None of my comments should be taken as a criticism of you. Nor of L00b in fact.

I think you both want what's best for everybody and you'd defend democracy and the rule of law like all decent folk. It seems however that some of our esteemed elected representatives in Westminster are not so inclined.

[Gamston]

On the lunchtime news today, there were scenes of protesters outside The Supreme Court holding up placards saying "STOP BREXIT" I don't think those people are interested in Parliament, debating the Government's BREXIT negotiating plans.

[unbeliever]

On the lunchtime news today, there were scenes of protesters outside The Supreme Court holding up placards saying "STOP BREXIT" I don't think those people are interested in Parliament, debating the Government's BREXIT negotiating plans.

 

The Liberal Democrats, the SNP, some in Labour and Ken Clarke think that everybody who voted for Brexit voted for isolation. They pretend that there's no way for us to have a good productive relationship with the rest of the world other than through the EU.

They will do anything and everything to undermine the referendum result. Their focus so far has been to water down Brexit to the point where it could be sold as Homeopathy, and keep us inside all the main EU institutions.

[L00b]

Parliamentary sovereignty is a proxy which is revokable every 5 years.

Still mistaking the moral principle of popular sovereignty for the political principle(/reality) that is parliamentary sovereignty: no GE touches upon the sovereignty of Parliament under any stretches of meaning.

 

For Parliamentary sovereignty to be "revocable every 5 years" , the collection of 'constitutional' Statutes and authorities which establish that sovereignty, would have to be repealed by Parliamentary vote pre-GE (revoked) and reinstated by Parliamentary vote post-GE (restored).

 

Please read paragraphs 18 to 23 of the recent High Court 'Brexit' judgement (here), it's a very useful and factual (and accessible) primer about what is Parliamentary sovereignty

They also handed it back to the people in calling the referendum.

No, they did not.

 

I'm not reminding you now that the referendum was 'advisory only' as a point scoring exercise, but to illustrate the fact that at no point has Parliament surrendered its sovereignty (however partially and/or temporarily) by granting (voting with approval for-) a referendum to the UK electorate: it has simply exercised it, and was at no point bound by its outcome. That is, until yesterday's vote, during which Parliament again exercised its sovereignty and only then decided to bind itself to the referendum outcome (in accordance with the UK's normal order of constitutional things).

 

i.e. decided that the UK was leaving the EU (did anyone catch the importance of that vote?)

Parliament has debated Brexit almost every day it has been in session since June.

Examples? Meaningful ones involving governmental policy and corresponding legal proposals, please Edited December 8, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Still mistaking the moral principle of popular sovereignty for the political principle(/reality) that is parliamentary sovereignty: no GE touches upon the sovereignty of Parliament under any stretches of meaning.

 

For Parliamentary sovereignty to be "revocable every 5 years" , the collection of 'constitutional' Statutes and authorities which establish that sovereignty, would have to be repealed by Parliamentary vote pre-GE (revoked) and reinstated by Parliamentary vote post-GE (restored).

 

Please read paragraphs 18 to 23 of the recent High Court 'Brexit' judgement (here)

No, they did not.

 

I'm not reminding you now that the referendum was 'advisory only' as a point scoring exercise, but to illustrate the fact that at no point has Parliament surrendered its sovereignty by granting (voting with approval for) a referendum to the UK electorate: it has simply exercised it.

Examples? Meaningful ones involving governmental policy and corresponding legal proposals, please

 

 

I understand you want to frame the conversation in legal technicality. But I don't.

 

I appreciate that judges have to rule in accordance with legal technicality and that moral choices have to be made within legal technicality, but that doesn't mean that anything which is technically legal is morally right. That which is morally right is a subset of that which is technically legal as I'm sure you'll agree.

[L00b]

I understand you want to frame the conversation in legal technicality. But I don't.

I'm just bothered about accuracy, if you don't mind.

 

Since a lot of pre- and post-Brexit arguments, and possibly a non-trivial amount of votes one way and the other in-between, are clearly down to highly imprecise, not to say downright misleading, use of terminology, figures and facts.

I appreciate that judges have to rule in accordance with legal technicality and that moral choices have to be made within legal technicality, but that doesn't mean that anything which is technically legal is morally right. That which is morally right is a subset of that which is technically legal as I'm sure you'll agree.

The Law ('legal technicality') at any give time is simply the codification of what the society enacting that Law deems moral and not at that time. And that codification is needed to establish a common frame of reference for all that live within and are governed by it.

 

You might not like it because it doesn't suit your line of argumentation or frame of mind. But it's the Law regardless, you can't simply wish it away (like too many have in relation to the HC/SC 'Brexit' cases, and their most shameful handling by British red tops).