Brexit delayed

[Digby]

Delighted as a remain voter but the bottom feeders of society have crashed the sterling for a giggle basically.

I think whether one is in favour of leaving or not this is a good decision by the court. The idea the government should seek to execute its authority by use of the royal prerogative is startling in the face of a supposed parliamentary democracy, even if one happens to like the decision it seems May would make in this instance it's a poor way to conduct government, and you could easily have disdain for many future positions which could be promoted on the back of acting as a monarch.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The questions now are whether the Supreme Court will find a way to modify the principle that the Royal Prerogative cannot be invoked to alter domestic law, or a way to pretend that invoking Art 50 will or alter domestic law.

If not, then will parliament pass a simple law saying "the PM and/or Secretary of State have the authority to trigger Art 50" or want to have a say on all the details before triggering.

Fun

They don't need to pretend that invoking article 50 will arlter domestic law because legally it leads directly to leaving the EU.

[Lizard]

So the Court ( of England & Wales) has ruled that only parliament can trigger Article 50.

That's a game changer.

Only in the sense that the picture of what we'll try to attain will be shaped (and compromised) by Parliament rather than just by the PM. We did still vote to leave, no matter how moronic that is, and they'll get enough votes in Parliament from those who want to leave and those who want to respect the referendum outcome even if they happen not to like it.

I think it is a bit more complex than that.

You didn't actually "vote to leave." You voted for an indication that a majority wants to leave. The referendum was always explicitly only indicative. The assumption has been that politically the government would not be likely to fail to act on that democratically obtained indication. This court ruling has placed in Parliament's hands the means to overturn the referendum result without the appearance of a democratic deficit.

The only really politic way for he government to not follow the democratic wishes of the governed would if there was a subsequent expression of democratic will overriding the indication from the referendum. A second referendum for no apparent reason other than regret and anger is a political non-starter. But the usual way that the governed express their democratic will is not by referenda but by electing MPs with a more-or-less desired policy platform. This Court ruling has put Parliament in the driving seat as a general election could well be held in which one party (or more) seeks to be elected with a specific policy and mandate to ignore the referendum result. If elected, they could justifiably say "the people have changed their minds, as demonstrated by electing us on a clear Bremain platform. The indication provided by the referendum is no longer valid."

[Digby]

This court ruling has placed in Parliament's hands the means to overturn the referendum result without the appearance of a democratic deficit.

I think it gives parliament a chance to advise on what the terms of our leaving will be, to whatever degree. I just can't see parliament being willing to ignore the result of the referendum, even if one labels it advisory or information finding.

[Lizard]

How can your Parliament "advise on the terms" when those terms must be negotiated with the EU *after* the irrevocable triggering of Article 50? As I understand it you cannot conditionally invoke 50 or withdraw an invocation. Once invoked, Parliament's role is spent as any negotiations will be a matter of foreign relations (unless the new relationship requires alterations to the UK's domestic laws)

[Stones of granite]

How can your Parliament "advise on the terms" when those terms must be negotiated with the EU *after* the irrevocable triggering of Article 50? As I understand it you cannot conditionally invoke 50 or withdraw an invocation. Once invoked, Parliament's role is spent as any negotiations will be a matter of foreign relations (unless the new relationship requires alterations to the UK's domestic laws)

According to the guy who wrote Art. 50, an invocation can be withdrawn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-37854483

I'm sure the price to pay for doing so would make it impractical, however.

[Digby]

How can your Parliament "advise on the terms" when those terms must be negotiated with the EU *after* the irrevocable triggering of Article 50? As I understand it you cannot conditionally invoke 50 or withdraw an invocation. Once invoked, Parliament's role is spent as any negotiations will be a matter of foreign relations (unless the new relationship requires alterations to the UK's domestic laws)

By setting the aims.

Whether an end to migration and paying no money into the EU budget. Or whether securing the best deal possible for our industry and service sectors, and securing long term investment into the UK. And most likely a messy trade off.

Government then has it's mandate from Parliament and goes off to make what deal it can, and Parliament then votes to approve the deal or not.

We'll be setting our aims either way, the choices are really whether Parliament sets them, or whether the PM and 3-4 others set them. There'll be some claims that makes negotiating harder, but I doubt our proposals will come as a surprise to the EU come what may, and too Parliament doesn't have to approve the deal so a hard brexit isn't off the table.

[Mellsblue]

Good to see the Remainers are still using terms such as 'bottom feeders' when describing Leavers. The utter arrogance and pedestal inhabiting of some Remainers still goes on strong. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I voted remain.

As for the debate over Article 50. For me, it is just that. A debate over whether to invoke it or not. All this talk of setting terms of reference is the usual grand standing and headline hunting of politicians. For all the many lengthy speeches in the chamber, parliament will not be able to put forward a proposal or motion on what the terms of brexit should be. Unless the government give them scope to do so, which I doubt they will. The MPs can waffle on about what they would like but this will not lead to any motion that will bind the executive.
What we really need for this sort of oversight is a Committee for Exiting the EU. Which, of course, there is. It's chairmen in Hilary Benn who is a strong Remainer. The committee is currently asking for submissions to their inquiry investigating the 'UK's negotiating objectives for withdrawal from EU inquiry'.
All the prominent remain MPs have stated that this isn't about stopping Article 50 being invoked but rather so that negotiating parameters can be set. Well they already have the correct channel through which to do this but the committee obviously doesn't garner enough air time or column inches.
Having said all that, I'm glad that the case was brought and I'm glad that it has strengthened parliament and parliamentary democracy. What I'm not happy about is remain MPs riding it's coat tails and twisting the result into something it is not.

[Stones of granite]

Good to see the Remainers are still using terms such as 'bottom feeders' when describing Leavers. The utter arrogance and pedestal inhabiting of some Remainers still goes on strong. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I voted remain.

This kind of language isn't the sole domain of one side or the other, and it's not helpful.

As for the debate over Article 50. For me, it is just that. A debate over whether to invoke it or not.

There is no debate. Parliament voted to hold a referendum to gauge the opinion of the electorate, and to fulfill a manifesto commitment. By the nature of the constitution, the referendum is advisory, but it would be a courageous MP that voted against the wishes of his constituency. I've done a little digging on this, and there are no clear figures broken down on a Westminster constituency basis, but it seems clear that a vote on these lines in the HoC would have a majority voting to invoke Art 50.

All this talk of setting terms of reference is the usual grand standing and headline hunting of politicians. For all the many lengthy speeches in the chamber, parliament will not be able to put forward a proposal or motion on what the terms of brexit should be. Unless the government give them scope to do so, which I doubt they will. The MPs can waffle on about what they would like but this will not lead to any motion that will bind the executive.

I expect that the terms of reference ought to be along the line of what the Leave campaign said in the lead up to the Referendum, as that is what the majority voted for. If anyone can actually decipher it.

What we really need for this sort of oversight is a Committee for Exiting the EU. Which, of course, there is. It's chairmen in Hilary Benn who is a strong Remainer. The committee is currently asking for submissions to their inquiry investigating the 'UK's negotiating objectives for withdrawal from EU inquiry'.

Yeah, the Government apparently aren't going to give a "running commentary", so I expect this Committee is going to be doing a lot of paper-clip counting.

All the prominent remain MPs have stated that this isn't about stopping Article 50 being invoked but rather so that negotiating parameters can be set. Well they already have the correct channel through which to do this but the committee obviously doesn't garner enough air time or column inches.

I'm not sure what "this" is that you are referring to. If it is the case in the High Court, then it is about the legal procedure that has to be followed, and nothing else, whatever any "prominent remain MPs" say or believe.

Having said all that, I'm glad that the case was brought and I'm glad that it has strengthened parliament and parliamentary democracy. What I'm not happy about is remain MPs riding it's coat tails and twisting the result into something it is not.

I agree. I have become increasingly concerned over various Governments interpretation of what their prerogative rights are. Not the least of limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs without a debate and vote in the House of Commons. It's a slippery slope...

[Mellsblue]

Good to see the Remainers are still using terms such as 'bottom feeders' when describing Leavers. The utter arrogance and pedestal inhabiting of some Remainers still goes on strong. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I voted remain.

1) This kind of language isn't the sole domain of one side or the other, and it's not helpful.

As for the debate over Article 50. For me, it is just that. A debate over whether to invoke it or not.

2) There is no debate. Parliament voted to hold a referendum to gauge the opinion of the electorate, and to fulfill a manifesto commitment. By the nature of the constitution, the referendum is advisory, but it would be a courageous MP that voted against the wishes of his constituency. I've done a little digging on this, and there are no clear figures broken down on a Westminster constituency basis, but it seems clear that a vote on these lines in the HoC would have a majority voting to invoke Art 50.

All this talk of setting terms of reference is the usual grand standing and headline hunting of politicians. For all the many lengthy speeches in the chamber, parliament will not be able to put forward a proposal or motion on what the terms of brexit should be. Unless the government give them scope to do so, which I doubt they will. The MPs can waffle on about what they would like but this will not lead to any motion that will bind the executive.

3) I expect that the terms of reference ought to be along the line of what the Leave campaign said in the lead up to the Referendum, as that is what the majority voted for. If anyone can actually decipher it.

What we really need for this sort of oversight is a Committee for Exiting the EU. Which, of course, there is. It's chairmen in Hilary Benn who is a strong Remainer. The committee is currently asking for submissions to their inquiry investigating the 'UK's negotiating objectives for withdrawal from EU inquiry'.

4) Yeah, the Government apparently aren't going to give a "running commentary", so I expect this Committee is going to be doing a lot of paper-clip counting.

All the prominent remain MPs have stated that this isn't about stopping Article 50 being invoked but rather so that negotiating parameters can be set. Well they already have the correct channel through which to do this but the committee obviously doesn't garner enough air time or column inches.

5) I'm not sure what "this" is that you are referring to. If it is the case in the High Court, then it is about the legal procedure that has to be followed, and nothing else, whatever any "prominent remain MPs" say or believe.

Having said all that, I'm glad that the case was brought and I'm glad that it has strengthened parliament and parliamentary democracy. What I'm not happy about is remain MPs riding it's coat tails and twisting the result into something it is not.

6) I agree. I have become increasingly concerned over various Governments interpretation of what their prerogative rights are. Not the least of limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs without a debate and vote in the House of Commons. It's a slippery slope...

1) It does come from both sides and I pull up the arrogance of both sides.

2) I'm glad to hear there'll be no debate and that the government will table prinary legislation and parliament will go straight to the vote. Unfortunately, many remain MPs are demanding a debate to try to frame the terms of negotiations as part of this. That is my issue.

3) Again, the prominent remain MPs disagree with you.

4) The government, rightly in my opinion, do not want a public running commentary. I'd hope that if the committee went in to private session Davis et al would answer fully and truthfully.

5) The 'this' I refer to is the court case demanding parliament vote on Article 50. Unfortunately, the prominent remain MPs, from what I have read and heard, do not seem to agree with you on this point.

6) Agreed. It's also a problem within the executive itself. Probably started by chats on sofas with Blair.

[Mellsblue]

A nice line from Boris about Britain making a titanic success of Brexit. I'm going to assume being Boris he realised what he was saying and just wanted the attention.

I thought a grammar Nazi, as it was so eloquently meme'd on another thread, such as yourself would understand that Johnson was using the original meaning of titanic rather than the bastardised version. Your use of a lowercase 't' suggests that you knew this and were consciously being mischievous.
Were I being mischievous, I could suggest that maybe Johnson did mean Titanic, and that he was subtly equating the EU to the Titanic. The referendum would of course be the iceberg.

[kk67]

This quote from Caroline Lucas had me giggling into my bowl of cornflakes. So succinct and accurate....quality stuff.

'Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and David Davis have presented themselves as defenders of parliamentary democracy. They cannot now protest when our judges agree with them'.

[Mellsblue]

I can't say I've seen or heard Johnson's reaction. From what I know he hasn't even commented on it. Davis reaction was that he believed govt has a mandate from the electorate, but they would appeal and if the ruling is upheld they'll put primary legislation through the usual process. But, I suppose when so few people, relatively speaking, care about what you have to say you don't have to be that worried about your words being scrutinised.

[Stones of granite]

1) It does come from both sides and I pull up the arrogance of both sides.

2) I'm glad to hear there'll be no debate and that the government will table prinary legislation and parliament will go straight to the vote. Unfortunately, many remain MPs are demanding a debate to try to frame the terms of negotiations as part of this. That is my issue.

3) Again, the prominent remain MPs disagree with you.

4) The government, rightly in my opinion, do not want a public running commentary. I'd hope that if the committee went in to private session Davis et al would answer fully and truthfully.

5) The 'this' I refer to is the court case demanding parliament vote on Article 50. Unfortunately, the prominent remain MPs, from what I have read and heard, do not seem to agree with you on this point.

6) Agreed. It's also a problem within the executive itself. Probably started by chats on sofas with Blair.

1. Fair enough

2. I may have misunderstood by what you meant by "debate". It wasn't clear that you meant debate in the HoC. In any case, what you suggest is exactly what should happen, and is what should have been written into the referendum bill in the first place.

3. I'm intrigued by this. Do you have any examples? I haven't seen any prominent remain MPs claim this, on the contrary, the prevailing opinion in the Brexit camp seems to be that the Judges are part of some wider conspiracy to prevent the invocation of Article 50 rather than having made a legal procedural point.

4. What is the point of the Committee? It seems to me to be a sham of a consensus-seeking body, but in reality they are as much observers as the rest of us.

5. Well, as I said, I haven't heard any remain MPs, prominent or otherwise, claim this. On the contrary, the Daily Mail tendency ARE calling it thus.

[Mellsblue]

'Starmer sounded prepared to play hardball in the upcoming skirmish over Article 50 in the House of Commons sparked by Thursday’s court ruling. He is adamant Labour has no intention of blocking Brexit in any vote, but is determined to exact his pound of flesh. “We have been pressing the government to disclose its opening negotiating strategy and we will continue to press for that,” he said. “The broad objectives have to be disclosed".'

'Labour’s Brexit spokesman said the government cannot expect MPs to “debate Article 50 in a vacuum” and expects the prime minister to publish a document setting out Britain’s opening position by January.'

politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-britains-last-remaining-hope/amp/?client=safari

------------

Owen Smith posted on Twitter: “Government must now spell out a vision of post-Brexit Britain before Article 50 is triggered by MPs. Brexit means Brexit is not good enough.

Caroline Lucas (pushing the 'prominent MP' line, I know) on Twitter: It’s right that parliament has opportunity to debate & vote on what sort of Brexit we want - not just Ministers at the top table

----------

Corbyn:

"This ruling underlines the need for the Government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.


Pat McFadden, Labour MP and part of the Open Britain campaign:

“A role for Parliament in the triggering of Article 50 is welcome. But Parliament should have a clear role in the substance of the Brexit negotiations, not just the process.

“Open Britain is calling on the Government to bring forward their substantive plans for the negotiations - in the equivalent of a White Paper - to be debated and voted on in Parliament before Article 50 is triggered.”

Both from:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europ ... article-50

---------

David Lammy, again pushing 'prominent MP':
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/article ... _1_4762486

[kk67]

Having said all that, I'm glad that the case was brought and I'm glad that it has strengthened parliament and parliamentary democracy. What I'm not happy about is remain MPs riding it's coat tails and twisting the result into something it is not.

Yeah. I have serious misgivings about the manner in which trade deals are now discussed and passed in total secrecy.
I appreciate that some details need to be secret or the markets and competitors could pre-empt or undercut the deals but the entire blanket secrecy is pernicious in some cases and downright nefarious in others.
In South London we had Boris and Chinese big business trying to perform an utter stitch-up on the site of Crystal Palace park/Sports centre. The deal was very close to going through until someone on Bromley council twigged that other stuff was going on under the counter.

[Mellsblue]

'Starmer sounded prepared to play hardball in the upcoming skirmish over Article 50 in the House of Commons sparked by Thursday’s court ruling. He is adamant Labour has no intention of blocking Brexit in any vote, but is determined to exact his pound of flesh. “We have been pressing the government to disclose its opening negotiating strategy and we will continue to press for that,” he said. “The broad objectives have to be disclosed".'

'Labour’s Brexit spokesman said the government cannot expect MPs to “debate Article 50 in a vacuum” and expects the prime minister to publish a document setting out Britain’s opening position by January.'

politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-britains-last-remaining-hope/amp/?client=safari

------------

Owen Smith posted on Twitter: “Government must now spell out a vision of post-Brexit Britain before Article 50 is triggered by MPs. Brexit means Brexit is not good enough.

Caroline Lucas (pushing the 'prominent MP' line, I know) on Twitter: It’s right that parliament has opportunity to debate & vote on what sort of Brexit we want - not just Ministers at the top table

----------

Corbyn:

"This ruling underlines the need for the Government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.


Pat McFadden, Labour MP and part of the Open Britain campaign:

“A role for Parliament in the triggering of Article 50 is welcome. But Parliament should have a clear role in the substance of the Brexit negotiations, not just the process.

“Open Britain is calling on the Government to bring forward their substantive plans for the negotiations - in the equivalent of a White Paper - to be debated and voted on in Parliament before Article 50 is triggered.”

Both from:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europ ... article-50

---------

David Lammy, again pushing 'prominent MP':
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/article ... _1_4762486

Doing a Rowan and quoting myself. Apologies.

Nick Clegg:

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has his party will try to amend legislation before Article 50 is triggered so the British public has a say on the final Brexit deal.

Speaking to ITV News, Mr Clegg said he would seek to amend the law to be brought forward by the government as a result of the recent High Court Brexit ruling to ensure that a "soft" rather than a "hard" EU departure is pursued.

He added: "[We will] also amend the legislation to ensure that the people - just as much as they took the initial decision to leave the European Union - have a say on the final package, the final terms of our departure at the end of the negotiations."

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-04/nick ... exit-deal/

[bruce]

'Starmer sounded prepared to play hardball in the upcoming skirmish over Article 50 in the House of Commons sparked by Thursday’s court ruling. He is adamant Labour has no intention of blocking Brexit in any vote, but is determined to exact his pound of flesh. “We have been pressing the government to disclose its opening negotiating strategy and we will continue to press for that,” he said. “The broad objectives have to be disclosed".'

'Labour’s Brexit spokesman said the government cannot expect MPs to “debate Article 50 in a vacuum” and expects the prime minister to publish a document setting out Britain’s opening position by January.'

politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-britains-last-remaining-hope/amp/?client=safari

------------

Owen Smith posted on Twitter: “Government must now spell out a vision of post-Brexit Britain before Article 50 is triggered by MPs. Brexit means Brexit is not good enough.

Caroline Lucas (pushing the 'prominent MP' line, I know) on Twitter: It’s right that parliament has opportunity to debate & vote on what sort of Brexit we want - not just Ministers at the top table

----------

Corbyn:

"This ruling underlines the need for the Government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.


Pat McFadden, Labour MP and part of the Open Britain campaign:

“A role for Parliament in the triggering of Article 50 is welcome. But Parliament should have a clear role in the substance of the Brexit negotiations, not just the process.

“Open Britain is calling on the Government to bring forward their substantive plans for the negotiations - in the equivalent of a White Paper - to be debated and voted on in Parliament before Article 50 is triggered.”

Both from:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europ ... article-50

---------

David Lammy, again pushing 'prominent MP':
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/article ... _1_4762486

Doing a Rowan and quoting myself. Apologies.

Nick Clegg:

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has his party will try to amend legislation before Article 50 is triggered so the British public has a say on the final Brexit deal.

Speaking to ITV News, Mr Clegg said he would seek to amend the law to be brought forward by the government as a result of the recent High Court Brexit ruling to ensure that a "soft" rather than a "hard" EU departure is pursued.

He added: "[We will] also amend the legislation to ensure that the people - just as much as they took the initial decision to leave the European Union - have a say on the final package, the final terms of our departure at the end of the negotiations."

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-04/nick ... exit-deal/

Good luck with that Nick. The Lame Dems are in no position to amend laws.

[Digby]

I can sort of see what Clegg wants to do with that, and I sympathise a great deal, but another referendum doesn't seem a good idea.

The EU mayn't play ball if the UK says actually we'd rather stay, and if you're the Lib Dems you risk that the great UK public, malcontent morons that they are, would reject a possible soft brexit that had been negotiated to try and force a hard brexit.

[kk67]

We're going through a transition period where Tim has given us the internet for free but it's controlled by H.

[Mellsblue]

malcontent morons

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the working class voted leave.

[Donny osmond]

malcontent morons

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the working class voted leave.

While I agree with you about about the language, I cant bring myself to have any sympathy, after all voting leave is going to predominantly hit those who voted leave. In order to prove they aren't malcontent morons, they've acted like... well, like people who are unhappy and who've done something silly. It's like trump voters in america or nationalists in Scotland (or indeed, nationalists anywhere); the idea that they'll stick it to the man by playing right into the man's hands doesn't really put them in a position to complain when someone takes the piss for doing so.

[Mellsblue]

malcontent morons

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the working class voted leave.

While I agree with you about about the language, I cant bring myself to have any sympathy, after all voting leave is going to predominantly hit those who voted leave. In order to prove they aren't malcontent morons, they've acted like... well, like people who are unhappy and who've done something silly. It's like trump voters in america or nationalists in Scotland (or indeed, nationalists anywhere); the idea that they'll stick it to the man by playing right into the man's hands doesn't really put them in a position to complain when someone takes the piss for doing so.

Ah, polite Remainer arrogance.

[Donny osmond]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the working class voted leave.

While I agree with you about about the language, I cant bring myself to have any sympathy, after all voting leave is going to predominantly hit those who voted leave. In order to prove they aren't malcontent morons, they've acted like... well, like people who are unhappy and who've done something silly. It's like trump voters in america or nationalists in Scotland (or indeed, nationalists anywhere); the idea that they'll stick it to the man by playing right into the man's hands doesn't really put them in a position to complain when someone takes the piss for doing so.

Ah, polite Remainer arrogance.

No more so than yours is an example of patronising excuse making.

[canta_brian]

Hard or soft, the issue with brexit is that it now must happen because of the result of a referendum held before any real idea of what a realistic brexit would look like.

A bit like been offered a 400 square foot extension on you house for free, only to find that it turns out to be 1 foot by 1 foot by 400 feet tall. Technically what you signed up for, probably not a choice you would have made had you known in advance.