UK's Brexit Cannot Pass Without Parliament Approval (aljazeera.com) 609
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court ruled on Thursday. This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty -- beginning formal exit-negotiations with the EU on its own. An anonymous reader shares a report on AlJazeera: The UK's High Court has ruled that Theresa May's administration is not allowed to trigger the country's exit from the European Union, or Brexit, without approval from parliament. Three senior judges ruled on Thursday that "the government does not have the power under the Crown's prerogative" to start EU exit talks. The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation. The government plans to appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court. Plans for Brexit are being challenged in a case with major constitutional implications, hinging on the balance of power between parliament and the government. May has said she will launch exit negotiations with the EU by March 31.
POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
I'm sure that literally every poster who thinks this is wonderful would have also been OK with an elite ruling counsel deciding to overturn.. oh I dunno... Obama's election to be president. Or maybe Obamacare.
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not presuming to talk for everybody, but personally, if that's what the constitution demands, then yes. Now let's talk about how realistic your examples are, given that at least Obamacare has been tested in court.
Common Sense and Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not presuming to talk for everybody, but personally, if that's what the constitution demands, then yes.
We do not have a constitution in the UK just laws and tradition. Since we entered the EU by parliament passing laws it takes parliament to repeal those same laws. It is just common sense. The reason the brexiteers are so paniced by this is because the majority for brexit was very slim and they are worried that any other referendum or vote will show that people have changed their mind.
This is why major changes to the fabric of a country are usually required to pass a far higher hurdle than merely 50% of the voters. You need a convincing margin to persuade those voting for the status quo to accept that the will of the people really has changed and that this is not a statistical blip fed by lies. Nobody is at all convinced that a second referendum, even at 50/50, would yield the same result now that the horrendous lies the leave campaign made have been exposed for what they were which happened within hours of the win.
Even worse was the fact that 2 million British citizens living abroad were excluded from the vote and many of them were enjoying the benefits of EU membership and so extremely likely to vote for remain. So the first vote was not even democratic since it excluded many of the citizens who are most directly affected by the results of the decision and since the victory margin was only 1.4 million this could easily have reversed the decision.
Common Sense and Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree with you. My read is that the polls caused complacency on the part of the stay crowd. I think now that the Torries are paying lip service to Brexit, but are slowboating the process until they can get another referendum or, as we see here, a vote in Parliament that allows the party in power to say, "Oh dear! Those lefties tied our hands. We cannot leave."
The referendum was not binding after all. It was a sop to the right that backfired. The Brexiters are a needed if despised constituency by the Conservative Establishment (as is our far right here in the US) but the Conservatives dare not alienate them. Let us remember that Parliament is 70% against an exit anyway.
Let me go on record by saying that Brexit will not happen. There will be smoke and more smoke signaling Brexit. Smoke, but no fire, just a smoke machine. The EU has made it clear it will not give the UK a soft landing. And why should it? An easy out for the UK would only embolden other restive members. The conservatives will lose every young person in the country forever if they let Brexit go through. And let us not forget Scotland.
But they won't let it happen. How can the UK leave the Common Market that has fed prosperity (on and off) since the end of WWII? Cannot and won't. Wait and see.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why major changes to the fabric of a country are usually required to pass a far higher hurdle than merely 50% of the voters. You need a convincing margin to persuade those voting for the status quo to accept that the will of the people really has changed and that this is not a statistical blip fed by lies. Nobody is at all convinced that a second referendum, even at 50/50, would yield the same result now that the horrendous lies the leave campaign made have been exposed for what they were which happened within hours of the win.
So let's not talk about what should have happened (and I do agree with your arguments in their entirety, btw). Let's talk about what did happen.
The entire things seemed to be a farce, with no real plan of how to enact an exit because the idea that BREXIT might happen seemed so far-fetched. The bar was set as "50% + 1", but with nothing to make this a binding referendum. The expectation must have been to vote to remain by a huge margin, because now you have the reality of Parliament being able to ignore t
Two thirds majority in 1975 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh fuck off.
It's a legal issue. The referendum was advisory which means that the law which gave rise to the referendum did not give it any legal power. Therefore to have legal power, new laws based on the result of it still have to go through the normal parliamentary process.
In other news, laws have to go through parliament no matter how much anyone wants them.
Duhhh.
Re: (Score:3)
"Therefore to have legal power, new laws based on the result of it still have to go through the normal parliamentary process."
Exactly! And Scotland has such a parliament as well.
Re:Where have I heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where have I heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on what the enabling legislation for the referendum says. The vote a few years ago to change the electoral system WAS binding because the bill that set up the referendum expressly said it was. The legislation for the EU referendum did not, it said that the referendum was merely advisory and the result certainly not binding.
Re:Where have I heard that before (Score:4, Insightful)
If the plebiscite was run again, it is likely to be a completely different result again. Right now, London, Scotland and Ireland seem to strongly want to remain.
I can understand why the Brexiteers are running another large campaign now showing "how good the economy is" and don't succumb to "project fear".
Are you really sure the plebiscite was a reflection of the will of the people, or the fear of the people?
Never underestimate the power of Xenophobia to control a populace.
Re:Where have I heard that before (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where have I heard that before (Score:4, Interesting)
And the UK has a majority government with only a third of the votes cast, only a quarter of the total electorate.
The thing with governments, prime ministers and presidents though is that you have to have someone doing the job. There are some checks and balances to potentially limit what they can do, and you have to have another vote on them in a few years.
Leaving the EU isn't like that. Theoretically we could choose to reapply after we have left, but the terms would be different, and there is no guarantee that we would be welcomed. There is no fixed term to say we will re-evaluate it in four years, or four years after that, etc. It's not an absolutely permanent position, but it's a fundamentally more rigid.
Re:Where have I heard that before (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win. [...] It was not advisory, it was not mandatory, it was a referendum. The fact you can play tricks and delay the will of the people is your lot being toss pots.
Go look up the definition of "non legally binding referendum", and then you will be qualified to continue in this conversation. Now elected officials have been informed that a slight majority of the population want to enact a major change to their country's economy and international relations, and have access to exit polls and other demographic data to get a sense of why people voted the way they did and what type of Brexit they wanted. The UK doesn't have a direct democracy for a reason, so now the professionals will take over.
This was not legally binding for the same reason you would let random citizens perform a surgery by committee.
Re: (Score:3)
If Parliament decides to go against the referendum, and the people as a whole really do want Brexit, they can express that in the next election. That's where the will of the people overrules everything else.
2 Million Reasons not to Accept the Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win.
To put it in a US election context would you accept the results of the US election if 10 million US citizens in a demographic group who were very likely to vote in support of your favourite candidate were excluded from having a vote and the victory margin of the winner was 6 million votes? (although I know the actual number of votes is not actually relevant in the US system).
This is exactly what happen with the referendum: 2 million British citizens (which if you scale the from a population of 60M to 300M is equivalent to 10 million US citizens) were denied a vote because they live abroad. Many of them live in the EU enjoying the benefits of membership and so were extremely likely to vote remain.
If 10 million US republicans (or 10M democrats) were denied a vote would you happily sit by and accept the results of the election? I very much doubt it so why should we accept it in the UK? It might have been legal but it was certainly not democratic.
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Err... I thought the sovereign was sovereign in the UK (i.e. The Queen).
Re: (Score:3)
Parliament made a Choice (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it *is* OK to "ignore what they say" since in the UK parliament is sovereign and not bound to any referendum's outcome.
That is not actually correct...but in a way which supports the decision of the court even more strongly. Parliament can choose whether or not to make the result of a referendum binding. The proportional vote referendum was indeed binding because parliament passed it that way.
This means that parliament deliberately chose NOT to make the EU referendum binding which implies that they wanted a chance to deliberate on the outcome and not blindly charge into Article 50. Hence the court's decision is absolutely correct: parliament made a deliberate choice to ensure that whatever the result the final decision on how to deal with the referendum rested with them.
Re: (Score:3)
Ha!
Actually I'm talking shit. I was confusing pre- and post- legislative referendums with binding and non binding ones.
TIL etc, mod parent down.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, they can be binding, but this one wasn't. <pedantry/>
Actually interested in pedantry: it actually can be binding in the UK? Of course referendums in general can be binding and in many other countries they are, but I thought it was not the case of the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The parliament can enact a law and say "this law comes into effect on January 1st 2017, provided the public votes yes to referendum foo before that date".
That way the referendum is binding, sort of.
Nothing stops parliament from repealing that law on January 2nd, of course. (Or even on December 31st).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the President of the USA can just do what he or she wants without recourse to either the Senate or the House? Didn't think so, and it is no different here in the U.K. The Prime Minister is not a dictator and has to follow the constitution, and that says *ONLY* Parliament can overturn an Act of Parliament and as triggering Article 50 would overturn the European Communities Act 1972 (UK) then it requires Parliament authorise this take place.
The result of the case is not the slightest surprise to anyone wit
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes power to the people to decide matters through the parliament and democratic process. This is far better than a non binding glorified opinion poll giving a government the power to ignore the limits set by the constitution.
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
The "ruling counsel" (also known as the Congress) can most certainly overturn Obamacare, they are the ones that passed it in the first place.
They can also under certain circumstances impeach the President. That's the purpose of having an elected representative body.
"Direct democracy" is a failed concept, in particular in a current memory-challenged meme-driven social environment. Democracy based on elected parliament seeks to create a balance between current and fluid public opinion and the need to maintain a meaningful course in governing.
IMHO, referendum is not a valid political tool and should not ever be used.
Re: (Score:3)
Swiss have a much lower rate of SPC (*) than average, about x10 lower than USofA, of which this discussion is an excellent reminder.
* - shitheads per capita.
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Informative)
[1] Literally, 'the city', which in the case of the UK is a bit more true than we'd like: has far too much power. [wikipedia.org]
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
I'm sure that literally every poster who thinks this is wonderful would have also been OK with an elite ruling counsel deciding to overturn.. oh I dunno... Obama's election to be president. Or maybe Obamacare.
You see the thing is, in the UK a referendum isn't binding like an election.
A great many Britons will be very happy if parliament ignores this vote including more than a few that voted out in protest thinking that it'd never win.
If parliament chooses not to enact Article 50, the voters can make their displeasure known at an election, which is binding by voting out the candidate that didn't vote to enact Article 50.
However most people like the UK having a functional economy and UKIP are a dysfunctional mess.
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:4, Informative)
I voted to Remain, but I'd be very concerned if the Parliament ignored this referendum as it would meant that it's would be pointless to run any further referendum as any vote would only be used to further the aims of the government, not change them.
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. This was the only possible outcome. The British constitution (which is a complicated written but not codified body of things from the Magna Carta onwards) is very clear that Parliament is sovereign. Nothing overrides that. People complaining that it's undemocratic seem to have forgotten several things:
Given the demographics of the voters in the referendum, I would expect that most MPs will vote to invoke Article 50, but it would set a very dangerous precedent if the Prime Minister could do so without their vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I wouldn't find it wise to live in a country where 18 million people think that I deprived them of their votes.
how about living in a country where 16M people think that you're fucking up their future because you're terrified?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
I'm sure that literally every poster who thinks this is wonderful would have also been OK with an elite ruling counsel deciding to overturn.. oh I dunno... Obama's election to be president. Or maybe Obamacare.
Actually in the UK its power to the English. Due to their larger population they get to steamroll over the other 'Kingdoms' and get whatever they want.
That sure is a nice UNITED Kingdom you have over there, shame if it got broken up because the other 'kingdoms' got sick of being pushed around by the English. When Scotland and Northern Ireland leave you'll have to strip out their flags from the Union Jack and you'll be left with a red cross on a white background. Then the International Red Cross will have a
Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:4, Insightful)
Checks and balances in the system?! What horrible forms of oppression! Oh no's!!!
The ACA went up to the supreme court, where the vast majority of it was upheld as legal and constitutional. Medicare expansion being imposed on the states was not upheld, and that let a bunch of red states opt out. So yeah, an elite council overrode the duly elected president and congress who had passed the law because they saw part of as overstepping the line of states rights. Everyone accepted the decision, and a bunch of poor and near poor people get to suffer at the hands of their state level elected officials.
As for Obama's election itself, we have another precedent in Gore v. Bush for the 2000 election. An elite council stopped an active recount and cutoff further arguments about bad ballots, and so on. Despite some pretty good evidence that bad ballot design skewing the results and a win well within recount error. Yet once the SCOTUS ruled Gore accepted the verdict and so did the rest of the country. We weren't all happy about it, but you didn't have mass riots or attempted coups, or 2nd amendment people "knowing what to do".
Your analogies actually spot on, and point out that checks an balances in government happen and are part of keeping the whole messy system functioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is an interesting moment for the UK, where any pretense of "democracy" gets put to the REAL test. The people have spoken and they've gone counter to the powers-that-be. So, will the powers-that-be respect that decision, or will they merely find some sleazy way to subvert it? I would say the odds are about 8-2 for the latter. But I would love to be proven wrong.
The thing is, 'UK' stands for 'United Kingdom'. Its made up of multiple entities. One of those entities has a larger population than the rest combined. By a slight majority, that larger entity voted to leave the EU. By a somewhat larger majority the other 2 entities voted to remain. Their populations may as well not have bothered to vote. They feel disenfranchised.
If things worked like this in the EU the trade deal with Canada would have been a foregone conclusion as Belgiums opinion wouldn't have mattered.
Re: (Score:2)
If the people's voice is just "advisory" then you've already failed the democracy test.
Vox populi (Score:3)
If the people's voice is just "advisory" then you've already failed the democracy test.
The people's voice is almost always advisory. The UK isn't a democracy except in a somewhat useless generic sense. It is a Constitutional Monarchy [wikipedia.org]. Similarly the USA is not a democracy either. It is a republic [wikipedia.org]. These are not trivial or pedantic distinctions. The law making bodies and governments are generally under no legal obligation to make laws in accordance with the will of the majority of the citizens.
That said, lawmakers and rulers ignore the voice of the people at their peril. Vox Populi, Vox
Re: POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm right aren't I? You really would sell your freedom for a bit of security.
The UK will suffer but won't fail catastrophically (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain isn't raping the world of its resources anymore so it has nothing.
It is very likely that the UK economy will suffer in the short and probably medium term due to Brexit-related changes and the uncertainty while those changes are worked out. In the long term, the economic implications aren't so clear and could be more favourable.
However, the idea that Britain has nothing of value to offer in its own right is just silly. It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people. It has world class academic and research institutions. It is a global business and finance hub with geographic and linguistic advantages. It has several major industries contributing to its economy beyond the high profile ones like financial services. It is completely implausible that all of this will be catastrophically undermined, even if it takes a long time post-Brexit to sort out new international agreements.
After all, the UK also trades with other nations outside the EU, accepts people from and sends people to other nations around the world, and so on. It already does more trade with non-EU partners than EU ones, and the gap is widening. If the adults sort out the post-Brexit arrangements between the UK and EU, there will still be some form of mutually beneficial trading relationships there, even if they are on somewhat different terms. If the petulant children who seem to have been running the show lately on both sides of the Channel get to call the shots, we will probably wind up with some sort of very hard Brexit. In that case, it seems more likely that the UK will start to rebalance its economy and diplomacy in favour of more trade with non-EU partners, but there is a lot of room to manoeuvre there if you're free of the EU customs union and the like, so that will probably also work out OK in the long term though it may be a much rougher ride for a few years first.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, this claim I'm making is fucking quantifiable.
It's also irrelevant. Those 60+ million people buy products and services from sources outside the EU today, and they still will tomorrow. For that matter, they'll still be able to buy from sources inside the EU too, even if it's a hard Brexit with no immediate trade deal.
If you want to talk about quantifiable, the UK has roughly as many people in its market as the smallest half of the other EU member states combined, and those in the UK have on average a lot more money to spend.
As for the likelihood of a UK
Re: POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score:3)
Huh who knew? (Score:3)
So apparently the PM isn't allowed to unilaterally overturn legislation without a parliamentary vote. Weird.
Re:Huh who knew? (Score:4, Informative)
What part of the word non-binding is hard to understand? Despite what Farage and May want, the referendum was from the beginning purely advisory.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you feel the same had the referendum voted to stay but parliament vote to Brexit anyway, ignoring the people's vote?
The point of this ruling is that Parliament has to vote on it, it cannot legally be done unilaterally by the PM.
Is that something you disagree with?
Re: (Score:3)
So why have the vote?
Because David Cameron promised it in his election manifesto because he was terrified that UKIP would split the Conservative vote and let Labour win the election. He was hoping that they'd get another coalition and he'd be able to blame not having the referendum on his coalition partner.
What? I didn't say it was a good reason...
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: Fuck the majority result because I don't personally agree with the outcome.
Re:Huh who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean unilaterally overturn legislation that the populous voted that they want overturned?
Yes. That's sort of the point of a legal system. You can't just shit over the laws simply because you really really really want to.
"The people" apparently want it and now it has to go through parliament just like any other law "the people" really really really want.
On the plus side this means the PM might have to awnser tricky questions like, oh I don't know, "what's your plan", and you know hold things up until a plan. The brexit vote simply means as we are told, brexit. It doesn't mean exit instantly with no plan at all.
Re:Huh who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about where you live
The UK.
, but where I live, this simply isn't true
Well, that's nice, but this Article is about the UK leaving the EU, so UK legislation is really the only legislation of relevance.
We have these things called voter referendums. If somebody can get enough signatures, they can insert items on to the ballot.
We don't.
The only reason your response has any legitimacy
It's legetimate because that's literally what the law says.
claim of wanting a plan in place. But this again falls into a point of potentially undermining the democratic process.
I don't see how. The referendum told the government the voters want to leave. It didn't say "jump immediately with no plan and no scrutiny". Hell, apparently Nissan motors knows more about the Government's plan than parliament does. If *that* doesn't undermine the democratic process than I don't know what does.
Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Interesting)
The funny part is where the Brits seem to think they have a choice on whether they get a "hard" or "soft" Brexit: As Al Jazeera's commentator argues [aljazeera.com], the EU is going into negotiations with such a hilariously imbalanced advantage -- the negotiations are likely going to be conducted in French -- that the UK really should consider itself lucky if they can manage to walk away with any agreement at all (instead of the entirely possible scenario of them being booted from the EU and concomitantly the WTO and having to renegotiate all their agreements with everybody).
So long, Brits! You decided to enact the geopolitical equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face in the most ridiculously exaggerated way possible, all to prove how much you despise foreigners, and now it's going to bite you in the ass! Enjoy sleeping in the bed you shit your very own self, because we sure will.
Re: (Score:3)
If the Tories want to keep their jobs and not get swept out by UKIP, they're still going to have to pass Brexit.
LoL, UKIP have had 3 different leaders in the last month and a very public punch up at a party meeting with one leadership candidate ending up in hospital.
UKIP are a complete joke. With Labor also being a complete Joke (and I say this as a traditional Labor supporter, Corbin needs to go or a lot of Labor supporters will keep voting Tory) all May has to do after not voting to enact Article 50 to keep her job is not screw up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
And therein lies the rub. 48% wanted to stay in the EU, 52% to leave, but that 52% is further divided between those that genuinely want a hard exit, and those that want some form of soft exit - whether to fix a single issue (immigration, EU regulation, EU funding, just sticking it to "elites", or whatever), or some combination of issues. Whether their understanding of the way the EU actually operates or not is correct being mostly immaterial to that, since it was pretty clear during the campaign that there were plenty of voters that were not prepared to listen to any facts that might contradict their opinion. So, once the final deal is reached, regardless of what it is, the majority of the public are almost certainly not going to be happy with the outcome; it'll either only satisfy the leave voters that still want a hard exit (non zero, but certainly much less than 52%), or it'll only satisfy those that still favour Remain - bearing in mind that the UK will have had two years of economic fallout (good and/or bad) by this point. There is one possible wildcard result though; if by some miracle the UK does get some form of Soft Exit then it'll only satisfy those that got all of their particular itch(es) scratched in the Leave camp, but will also appeal to those who are content with the trade-offs in the Remain camp, which might actually be a majority.
Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Informative)
Spain wants Gibraltar back. They voted over 90% to remain. I imagine they are in a mild panic right now.
They really should approve though (Score:5, Interesting)
I am against Brexit, but in the interest of democracy it would be wrong for parliament to reverse a vote on the exact same question as was put to parliament. I agree that it should go to parliament, we can do without ancient devices like the PM using royal prerogative to bypass parliament, but the only reasonable direction for the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs would be to vote in favour.
However after an agreement is reached there should be another vote. People voting for and against Brexit did so for different reasons, sometimes contradictory. For example I know some people who wanted reduction of all immigration to very low figures, and others who though that a level playing-field with the same level of immigration would mean that they could bring in curry chefs from Mumbai rather than having to take on and train Polish chefs. Once there is a concrete proposal then MPs should be able to vote for or against it, or maybe even have a second referendum. After all if most people would disagree with a proposal then it's diffcult to argue that pushing it through is the most democratic course of action.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. Is it really in the interest of democracy to decide such a decision within a margin of error? I mean many other referendum outcomes on such important topics require a much higher certainty to pass.
Re: (Score:3)
Purely reversing the referendum result would not go down well with anyone, however having snap election to decide what party (coalition) has a proper mandate for something that will have impact for several decades might be a good way forward.
Would be interesting to see how Labour and Conservative MPs will vote on this issue, if in some cases they either are against their party line or against their constituents.
As things stand, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Scottish National Party are ready for a coalit
Re: (Score:2)
In the interest of democracy it would be wrong for parliament to reverse a vote on the exact same question as was put to parliament
It's been months since the referendum. There's plenty of room to argue that the will of the people has changed in that time, and that it would be in the interest of democracy to reverse the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that public opinion hasn't shifted, or that the legislative body should ignore it if it has? Parliament shouldn't be so reactionary that the course of the country is changing wildly on a weekly basis, but it also shouldn't be eternally bound to the outcome of a public opinion poll (which is what the referendum was) that was taken on one day in June 2016.
Re: (Score:3)
And, if after two months the opinion has not changed to one you want, wait another two months and check in again. Repeat until public opinion finally aligns with your own.
I get your point - but what exactly did we vote for? Leaving the EU has so many different possible outcomes, what if the leave deal is nothing like you wanted? If you were dead set on reducing free movement of people and the deal we go for doesn't include that, is that OK? It's still technically leaving the EU, so that's fine then?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
However after an agreement is reached there should be another vote.
This is obviously the most sensible option. Figure out exactly how the ministers plan on executing the Brexit, and then have another vote to see if the people still want to go through with it. Otherwise you will have a likely scenario where only a small portion of Brexit voters actually see an outcome they thought they were voting for.
Re:They really should approve though (Score:4, Insightful)
As a whole the parliament should respect the result of the referendum and approve Brexit.
The problem is that individually, every MP has a position on Brexit and some of them might have promised to their people that they would vote against Brexit. And this is part of democracy too.
If a majority of the MPs are in this situation, the parliament as a whole could reject Brexit even tough it's against the will of the people. The conservative government want to avoid this deadlock and hoped to avoid a vote in the parliament for this reason. If the UK didn't have an archaic first past the post voting system, they might not have been in this situation. To begin with, the conservatives should not have done this non-binding referendum if they didn't have a majority of pro-Brexit MPs in the parliament to approve the result.
Re: (Score:3)
Parliament should have a vote. Our democracy is set up, like most, with two houses so that one can act as a check and balance for the other. Effectively decisions are checked twice, and it helps prevent one house becoming an echo chamber.
In that light it makes sense to have the result of the referendum checked by parliament. There is also the issue of exactly what the vote meant. The question was "do you wish to remain a part of the EU, or leave the EU?", it did not address questions like if we should remai
Re: (Score:2)
There doesn't seem to be a legal requirement for either of those, so it's important that the legal process be followed now as it might be the last opportunity.
Nah, I reckon "Brexit" gives the PM the right to do whatever the hell she wants in the name of Brexist because democracy. I mean, the people voted it by 51%, right? That must mean anything in the name of Brexit is OK.
Well duh.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
The entire point of a democratic system isn't "pointless" just because, in one instance, a parliament does't follow a non-legally-binding poll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The indication Parliament got from the referendum was that the country is very nearly equally split on the issue (before the referendum, Nigel Farage (a - no, the - leading exit campaigner) said that a 48%/52% split would be "unfinished business", and he was right (it's just that he thought at the time the split would go against him). No political party serious about election or re-election wants to throw away 48% of the votes of the portion of the electorate that turns up at polling stations much more tha
Re: (Score:2)
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
If the UK government let the people vote on massive changes to the country while only requiring a simple majority, then the entire point of having a representative democratic system is pointless. Any country which always does what 51% of its people want at any given time is doomed.
Oh great (Score:2, Troll)
Not content with Trumpary stories, we now get Brexit stories as well?
Pointless shouting matches ahead!
On the other hand. . . (Score:2)
. . . .if Parliament is required to have their say. . . the PM can put the question to Parliament, and if the question fails, she can call for elections. . .
If they're replaced by new MPs that support Brexit, it will pass the second time.
That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. I suspect, that in reality, not too many MPs will be replaced: they have similar incumbency to that of the US House: 8.7 years in Parliament [parliament.uk] vs 9.1 years in the House [cnn.com]. . .
Subtle distinctions, British vs. American English (Score:2)
Every now and then there's a phrase that's put forth in British English that has us Americans gob-smacked. For example, back when the Grexit was all the talk, and there was discussion in the British press of the "potential failure of the Greek government" we Yanks were all up in arms because those words mean "failure of the society's mechanism for sovereign rule." Failure of the government, in American English, only happens during things like revolution or invasion.
But to Brits, and those more familiar wi
Re: (Score:3)
I'll try to explain (as an ordinary citizen - not a constituional expert).
The UK has a representative democracy which elects members to the House of Commons and a non-elected second chamber (House of Lords) which is supposed to act as a review/checking body. Many people do not like the non-elected part of this, but it is what it is. Both houses notionally advise the monarch who makes the law; these days it is a nicety and she basically rubber stamps everything but she is supposed to be a non-party-politic
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly seeing this as a major setback for democracy.
Re:Ironically (Score:4, Informative)
No the court has ruled that only Parliament can overturn an Act of Parliament. As triggering Article 50 would over turn the 1973 EEC Act then Parliament and *ONLY* Parliament can give the authority to trigger Article 50.
This is UK constitutional law 101 and anyone who thought otherwise is simply ignorant of the law. Blame Cameron for not making the referendum result legally binding.
Ruling on existing laws only (Score:2)
Welcome to the world of appointed judges who legislate from the bench, Great Britain. Fun times - you'll just love it.
Exactly what was "legislated from the bench"? The court ruled that they have to follow the existing laws of the land. Nothing more, nothing less. The referendum was legally non-binding as there were no laws in place to make it binding prior to the referendum taking place. As such parliament would under any circumstances be required to pass appropriate legislation to make the referendum binding. This is NOT "legislating from the bench". It is just ruling on existing laws. No new laws or even novel int
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that the House of Lords would have heard this case in the past, before there was a high court. Welcome to the world of appointed judges who legislate from the bench, Great Britain. Fun times - you'll just love it.
You understand incorrectly. In the past the law lords were ex officio members of the House of Lords but they were only 12 out of several hundred members. Separating them off into a Supreme Court (which isn't the High Court, btw) to make a clearer distinction between legislature and judiciary was a positive move IMHO.
Secondly, I am amazed that so many Americans, in particular, support the idea that executive fiat should override a law passed in Parliament. Taking the Lord Chief Justice's ruling, which includ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wwjd. it's not just for christians.
what would lincoln do?
morgenthau or marshall?
one road led to world war 2, the other led to... well modern germany.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Your sovereignty is worth more than the conveniences the EU provides.
That's meaningless and nonsensical. We already and currently have sovereignty. If we dodn't, then we could never have opted to leave.
It's the most subtle way of undermining the democratic process there is.
Yeah well, referendums undermine the democratic process too. Especially ones with a low barrier to passing. That sort of referendum has a history of being abused which is why not at all coincidentally Germany has no allowance for refer
Re: (Score:2)
So you have sovereignty because you had the opportunity to leave via a referendum
If the government can vote to leave via any mechanism and no one sends armed forces to stop them then yes, we have sovereignty. We can and always could pass whatever-the-fuck laws we wanted. No tanks, planes or missiles would come to force us into line.
All that would happen is that if we broke the rules of a club, then we don't get allowed in the clubhouse. Other people not wanting to deal with your country because you're dickh
Re: (Score:2)
But you aren't leaving.
News to me.
So even though the people democratically voted leave, you're not.
Says who?
This ruling says that changing the law is a matter for parliament, not unilateral action by the PM. It says nothing about whether or not we are actually leaving.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament has sovereignty, not the people. Keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
The referendum was not "clean". For a start the question was highly inadequate: do you want to remain in the EU, or leave the EU? Well, okay, say you want to leave, does that mean also leaving the single market, getting rid of freedom of movement, going back to WTO rules, or come out of the European Convention on Human Rights?
At the very least, there now needs to be clarification on what the UK outside the EU will look like.
Re: (Score:2)
This is good for all those people who voted for Brexit so they could take back democracy; they have actually taken back democracy.
It's not so good for all those people who only saidthey wanted Brexit so they could take back democracy, because now we can see they don't actually want democracy at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking moron.
Hey why bother to have the slightest clue. We're in a post factual age and given your attitude it's no wonder you're a rabid Brexit supporter.
This ruling has literally nothing to do with your mindless blithering. But whatever, it didn't stop you having a very loud, very misinformed and very deeply held opinion on it.
This ruling means the PM has no legal power to unilaterally overturn laws just because she really really REALLY wants to. A change in the law has to go through parliament and be vo
Re: (Score:2)
-- Oscar Wilde