Brexit - the next steps

[Hope]

Quite unbelievable that Brexiters are complaining that a British court was ruled that the sovereign and democratically elected British parliament should be allowed to exercise its right as a sovereign parliament. I thought it was all about bringing back control to our sovereign British parliament - clearly not according to the hypocrite Brexiters.

I don't find it unbelievable, PD.  The Leave campaign have never really wanted the British Parliament to regain its sovereignity; all they want is for the power of Parliament to be subsumed beneath the will of the people.  This ruling goes against that principle.

[Jack Knave]

Dear Jack, Jakswan, Sass and T8, ( there may be others lurking in the undergrowth )

given the decision of the high court do you think this is a good decision, is Brexit a small decision or a massive decision, should parliament debate every step/negotiating strategy we make before we trigger article 50.

Should it be left to the government to make every decision on how we leave the EU.

Given that the people who voted for Brexit came from all different walks of political life should it not be in their interests that all parties debate our exit from Europe.

Gonnagle.

This decision is wrong but the way the referendum was run and set up was sloppy and ill formed.

Let us see what the supreme court says first before we consider the ins and outs of all this. But if this decision holds then there is going to be chaos on several levels; and possibly a GE.

Also, all the EU treaties were done on the governments prerogative, no parliament vote was taken on them, so if we can do that in signing into Treaties why not getting out of them?

[Jack Knave]

I don't think the Commons would oppose Brexit, as the consequences could be awful.   Not sure about the Lords.  But obviously, Parliament should have a say in what kind of Brexit.   I would think that Mrs May doesn't like that idea, as she seems to be interpreting the referendum like a medieval monarch.

You mean the way Brown sneaked in to sign the Lisbon treaty without a vote in parliament or a promised referendum on it?

[Jack Knave]

In a couple of ways it already has, the pound is up a bit and the betting for triggering Article 50 has shifted to later next year. Not sure that appealling it will look politically good, especially were they to lose again.

For parliament to actually vote it down when the time cones, would I suspect be a difficult one. There are more than enough MPs in favour of staying to defeat it but I suspect it would lead to an immediate GE where Labour would be annihilated, followed by it being triggered after that. I would suspect that a number of Tories would vote not to trigger it but they would need to be either not that ambitious or very principled.

The idea that thus is somehow a betrayal of the people is ludicrous rhetoric from Farage and his ilk

If they are going to vote it through why vote on it?

[Jack Knave]

There is something comical in the Brexiteers saying they want sovereignty returned, and now they are screeching that this judgment is betraying the people, since parliament should not interfere.  Yet it's Parliament that is sovereign, isn't it?

No it's not. The sovereignty was against the EU not the people.

[Jack Knave]

I see also attacking the idea of unelected judges because that is all to do with the EU - oh wait it isn't, it's the constitution that they wanted back that has had that, but hey who cares about facts.

The law says that judges can't pass decisions on this. The court case was basically illegal. This was mentioned by Gerard Batten - I suggest people look out for this in the news.

[Nearly Sane]

This decision is wrong but the way the referendum was run and set up was sloppy and ill formed.

Let us see what the supreme court says first before we consider the ins and outs of all this. But if this decision holds then there is going to be chaos on several levels; and possibly a GE.

Also, all the EU treaties were done on the governments prerogative, no parliament vote was taken on them, so if we can do that in signing into Treaties why not getting out of them?

why is the decision wrong? Please cite legal argument.

[Nearly Sane]

You mean the way Brown sneaked in to sign the Lisbon treaty without a vote in parliament or a promised referendum on it?

and prize for the irrelevant tu quoque goes to Jack Knave

[Nearly Sane]

If they are going to vote it through why vote on it?

Because that's how our constitution works. Are you suggesting that because you or Nige thinks it will pass, we don't need a parliamentary vote?

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, yes we believe in sovereignty except when we don't


http://tinyurl.com/jmy4rhy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, not wrong, Gonners.  The British people have been split over the EU for many years - and Nigel farage picked up on this when he started UKIP back in 1993.  As such, the referendum was only partly to do with internal party divisions - it was just as much about Labour's internal party divisions on the subject.
And, of course, research points to the fact that very few 'British' jobs were taken by immigrants.  For one thing, very few immigrants are able to work in the first place - especially asylum seekers; many immigrants who did get jobs often got well-paid jobs in industries such as engineering and IT, in part because they were 'head-hunted' as it were when the shortages of such people became clear after decades of under-investment by consecutive governments.  Ironically, their gatting such jobs has actually created more 'lower-tier' posts for Brits who don't have the skills for more highly skilled posts. 

The Tories and other Remain campaigners made all this very clear for months prior to the referendum; sadly, the British people chose to give more credence to the evidence-less claims of the likes of UKIP and the other Leave campaigners - some of whom were Tories, but not all.
Interesting that you call it Tory propaganda - I've been asking that question for weeks, if not months.  All the court ruling does is require that Parliament vote on the act of triggering Article 50.  It says absolutely nothing about anyone having a say on the progress and outcome of the negotiations. 

If anything, your interpretation suggests that you have imbibed more UKIP propaganda than you might like to think.

Cameron's mission was pure Bullingdon. Rag the country and make a splash.
I'm glad the ball is back in the court of brexiteers who thought this whole thing was a five minute job.

[jeremyp]

I have just seen this on-line and wonder if it will make any difference?

If the decision is upheld in the Supreme court, the Brexit negotiations could be mired in the British political process for years.

I have to say that I am totally astonished that the decision went this way. In an episode of Unreliable Evidence recently, all three legal experts (Brexiters and Remainers amongst them) thought the action would fail.

[jeremyp]

I would go further and suggest that UKIP have a seat at the table,

They have an MP therefore they have a seat at the table.

This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.

Are you serious? A fair proportion of people who voted Brexit were Tories or UKIP little Englander ex Tories. The areas where the Tories are weak: cities and Scotland voted Remain.

[jeremyp]

The Leave campaign have never really wanted the British Parliament to regain its sovereignity; all they want is for the power of Parliament to be subsumed beneath the will of the people.  This ruling goes against that principle.

Rubbish.

You are saying that the Leave Campaign wanted a coup in effect.

The British Parliament is the democratically elected body that takes decisions about running the country on behalf of the British people. That's the way it has been for nearly a hundred years and if people had remembered that before having that stupid referendum that just showed a significant proportion of the electorate are too irresponsible to take important decisions^* like this we wouldn't be in this huge mess now.

^*By that, I don't mean everybody who voted for Brexit, only those who voted just to kick the establishment up the arse or those who voted only on the issue of immigration.

[jeremyp]

Also, all the EU treaties were done on the governments prerogative

Wrong.

[jeremyp]

Having read the whole thread, I see there seems to be some misconception about this vote that now has to happen.

It really isn't as simple as just having a vote in Parliament. There has to be a bill which means it has to go through the full parliamentary process. That means that the Bill can be made subject to amendments. So, although MPs probably don't have the nerve to stand up for their convictions and vote down the Bill (don't forget amongst MPs the majority is for remain), it is very likely that various amendments will be tabled. For example, somebody might table an amendment to require the government to maintain access to the single market. MPs could vote for that without denying the result of the referendum.

Then there is the process itself that requires readings and committee stages etc etc etc. This will certainly push back article 50 which means there's more time for the economy to take a dive and more time for public opinion to change.

Part of the process, by the way, requires the Bill to go through the House of Lords. They can't stop it altogether, but they can delay it with amendments. 

All the above shows why the government has to appeal the decision if it wants a hard Brexit on the original timetable.

This court decision is a really big deal. It's a victory for British Parliamentary democracy assuming it doesn't get overturned by the Supreme Court (which I think  it probably will, if I'm being honest).

[Nearly Sane]

No, Jeremyp, it isn't clear that that is what the decision means. It asks for parliamentary consent but that isn't defined. There is no indication that it needs a bill.

[jeremyp]

No, Jeremyp, it isn't clear that that is what the decision means. It asks for parliamentary consent but that isn't defined. There is no indication that it needs a bill.

Nope. Not according to the BBC's political editor last night on Radio 4. There needs to be a bill. This is not going to be just a debate and a vote.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope. Not according to the BBC's political editor last night on Radio 4. There needs to be a bill. This is not going to be just a debate and a vote.

how did they d le out a resolution being sufficient?

[ProfessorDavey]

No it's not. The sovereignty was against the EU not the people.

Rubbish - the Brexit campaign was all about bringing back control to the sovereign British parliament, democratically elected by the British people.

I never heard anyone in the Brexit campaign claim that the British parliament should be sidelined (quite the reverse) and that somehow all decisions in a post-Brexit word should be by direct vote of the people (i.e. a referendum). That was never discussed.

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean the way Brown sneaked in to sign the Lisbon treaty without a vote in parliament or a promised referendum on it?

Rubbish - the UK only signed the Lisbon treaty via an Act Parliament, in other words after it had been debated in parliament and had been passed by votes in both the commons and lords and a bill receiving royal assent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290871.stm

To give some context the bill was passed by 346 to 206 in the commons after 6 weeks of debate.

[jeremyp]

how did they d le out a resolution being sufficient?

Sorry, I can't work out what the mangled word should be. Anyway, David Davis says there needs to be an Act of Parliament and on the Today Programme shortly before interviewing Nick Clegg, they said he will be introducing one. Nock Clegg, btw, said exactly what I hoped he would say: the Lib Dems will table an amendment to insist on a soft Brexit and for there to be a democratic decision (possibly a referendum) at the end of the negotiation to say yes no to the final package.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Good morning Mr Wrong ( again )

Are you serious? A fair proportion of people who voted Brexit were Tories or UKIP little Englander ex Tories. The areas where the Tories are weak: cities and Scotland voted Remain.

Actually maybe my accusation of wrong is, well wrong misguided maybe, or just forgetful, below is a breakdown of how the country voted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/

More than one in three people along the coast north of Hartlepool placed themselves in the DE social-class in the last census. Leave's victory here can be seen as a sign that they successfully appealed to working-class voters.

Working class voters or you could call them, disaffected Labour supporters, and remember I used the word swayed, these are the people who the Tory party forgot about, the people who the Tory party turned into, what you rightly call "UKIP little Englander" but not ex Tories.

I would just like to add ( whilst I am chuntering along here ) Sane and Gordon tell me you are doing a fine job behind the scenes of keeping our little forum motoring along, so thank you old chum  

Also, and just because it is you but I will also include ProfDavey ( I highly respect both of your postings ) simply because the both of you are/were two of Jack Knaves most voracious opponents, as this Brexit nonsense unfolds there seems to me ( my opinion ) that Jack Knave spoke a lot of truth in highlighting what the EU was up to behind closed doors, TTIP and CETA for example.

To end, I am now wondering if there is an up side to Farage and his little cronies, well is there??

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Rubbish - the UK only signed the Lisbon treaty via an Act Parliament, in other words after it had been debated in parliament and had been passed by votes in both the commons and lords and a bill receiving royal assent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290871.stm

To give some context the bill was passed by 346 to 206 in the commons after 6 weeks of debate.

Also, Maastricht had to be ratified by Parliament. That was the political soap opera of the day with John Major's government in danger of being undermined by its own back benchers (Ian Duncan-Snake amongst them).

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

Good morning Mr Wrong ( again )

Actually maybe my accusation of wrong is, well wrong misguided maybe, or just forgetful, below is a breakdown of how the country voted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/

Interesting. It says Scotland and the city voted Remain.  Wow, that's exactly what I said.

I would just like to add ( whilst I am chuntering along here ) Sane and Gordon tell me you are doing a fine job behind the scenes of keeping our little forum motoring along, so thank you old chum  

Flattery will get you everywhere.

Also, and just because it is you but I will also include ProfDavey ( I highly respect both of your postings ) simply because the both of you are/were two of Jack Knaves most voracious opponents, as this Brexit nonsense unfolds there seems to me ( my opinion ) that Jack Knave spoke a lot of truth in highlighting what the EU was up to behind closed doors, TTIP and CETA for example.

Negotiating trade agreements? If Brexit goes through, we'll be doing a lot of that on our own over the next ten years (for example, we'll have to do Canada again). If you think we'll end up with something different to what the EU has got, you're having a laugh.