Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

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.

It was meant to read rule out. I still don't see that it can be ruled out that a resolution would be sufficient. As Davis clearly states, the judgement is not clear but they are presuming that that will need a piece of legislation. Colour me cynical about politicians' motives, but this reads like an attempt to ramo up sentiment against the decision by talking about it as if it is a major block.

[Nearly Sane]

Odd resignation


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899

[wigginhall]

Wow, the tabloids are something else this morning.   DM - 'Enemies of the people' - this is about the 3 judges.   This is quite scary, the use of plebiscites to over-rule Parliament.  Sounds familiar.

[ProfessorDavey]

Odd resignation


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899

This is rather worrying. I gather he is what might be called a moderate Brexiter - he supported leave but favours retaining access to the single market and a balanced approach to immigration. That he now feels that there are irreconcilable differences with the Government, that he has described the Government as lurching to the right.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the first sentence in the article here is particularly important.



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/unhinged-backlash-high-courts-brexit-ruling/

[Nearly Sane]

This is rather worrying. I gather he is what might be called a moderate Brexiter - he supported leave but favours retaining access to the single market and a balanced approach to immigration. That he now feels that there are irreconcilable differences with the Government, that he has described the Government as lurching to the right.

I find it odd that he happily stood throughout the last govt, and then voted to leave  but thought that the single market would stay. Why not stay on and attempt to change the policy than just resign?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the first sentence in the article here is particularly important.



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/unhinged-backlash-high-courts-brexit-ruling/

One of the reasons that I supported remaining in the EU is that it provided extremely important checks and balances to our own government. I have already expressed on different threads my concern that our already unreasonably centralised system of government would get even more so without the EU, with far, far too much power rested in the Westminster government.

Those concerns are getting greater with the push firstly to sideline parliament, which itself acts as a check to government, but also the courts - we are in really dangerous territory when we feel that the Government can do what it likes without being accountable to both parliament and the courts.

[Jack Knave]

why is the decision wrong? Please cite legal argument.

The courts have no right to tell parliament what to do or how to carryout their procedures.

[Jack Knave]

and prize for the irrelevant tu quoque goes to Jack Knave

It is very relevant because he used his prerogative to do the Lisbon deal, which was never put to a vote in the Commons. So by signing it and not giving parliament a chance to vote on it he did exactly what May wants to do.

[Jack Knave]

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?

May has a mandate from the people to trigger Art.50.

[Jack Knave]

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


http://tinyurl.com/jmy4rhy

The sovereignty bit was against Brussels not the people, who trump parliament when they vote on a specific issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

May has a mandate from the people to trigger Art.50.

And that 'mandate' may only be realised via the normal Governmental process, i.e. through authorisation by Parliament.

You don't seem to understand that the Government can't just change to law on a whim, laws are only changed when they have been through and passed by parliament. Only then can they receive Royal Assent.

Do you somehow believe that this issue should ride roughshod over our constitutional processes.

[ProfessorDavey]

The courts have no right to tell parliament what to do or how to carryout their procedures.

Yes they do - Parliament can change the law (via the correct constitutional process), but Parliament and the Government are not above the law, they must adhere to the law just as the rest of us do. Hence there are plenty of examples where actions of Government have been shown to be unlawful and therefore must be withdrawn.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is very relevant because he used his prerogative to do the Lisbon deal, which was never put to a vote in the Commons. So by signing it and not giving parliament a chance to vote on it he did exactly what May wants to do.

That is a lie - the Lisbon treaty was only ratified after it had been through parliament via a bill which was enacted via the normal process.

[Jack Knave]

Wrong.

Right!!!

[Jack Knave]

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).

Or May could just trigger Art.50. What could they (who ever they are) do? She has a mandate from the people.

[Jack Knave]

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.

What a stupid comment. MP are there because of the people. If the people vote on a specific issue, as in a referendum, then that trumps parliaments views on the matter.

"...democratically elected by the British people." - See, you agree with me!!! 

[Jack Knave]

One of the reasons that I supported remaining in the EU is that it provided extremely important checks and balances to our own government. I have already expressed on different threads my concern that our already unreasonably centralised system of government would get even more so without the EU, with far, far too much power rested in the Westminster government.

Those concerns are getting greater with the push firstly to sideline parliament, which itself acts as a check to government, but also the courts - we are in really dangerous territory when we feel that the Government can do what it likes without being accountable to both parliament and the courts.

My irony-meter has just blown a fuse. The venal, corrupt EU keeping a check on our government!!!                 

Barroso got a job with Goldman Sachs. Those lobbyists are sure running things in Brussels by offering a great revolving door menu!!!

[Jack Knave]

And that 'mandate' may only be realised via the normal Governmental process, i.e. through authorisation by Parliament.

You don't seem to understand that the Government can't just change to law on a whim, laws are only changed when they have been through and passed by parliament. Only then can they receive Royal Assent.

Do you somehow believe that this issue should ride roughshod over our constitutional processes.

No law is being changed. She is just starting the negotiation process, as mandated by the people.

The constitutional process occurred in the carrying out of the referendum, as passed by parliament in a bill.

[SweetPea]

It's all one huge game.... and we are pawns in the game..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

May has a mandate from the people to trigger Art.50.

Well it's the only one she'll get .....and the only one Brexiteers will get to give.
At least it will buck the three Los Wankeros up. 

[Hope]

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.

What is there to debate?  The nation has voted (albeit in an advisory fashion) to leave the EU.  Things could have been organised better in the wording of the 'order' that established the referendum - should it be merely advisory or binding; what majority would be needed to count as a telling one - is 5%+1 sufficient on a constitutional issue as important as this?; ... .  However, for better or worse, the political parties have decided to treat the result as binding.

Why should Parliament debate something and hold a vote that could potentially overturn the will of the people?  Is the will of Parliament paramount, or is the will of the people.

I would argue, as a staunch Remainer, that requiring Parliament to have a debate about the timing of the triggering of Article 50 is pointless and could even be seen as undemocratic.  Get Parliament to debate the various processes and fruits of negotiation, by all means, but should Parliament get a say in when a trigger is pulled, NO.

OK, if the Government of th day had chosen to delay and delay and delay any such triggering, such that we had reached 2018 or '19 without any sign of its being executed, perhaps a vote would be appropriate, simply because such a scenario could be seen as denying the will of the people.

[torridon]

What is there to debate?  The nation has voted (albeit in an advisory fashion) to leave the EU.  Things could have been organised better in the wording of the 'order' that established the referendum - should it be merely advisory or binding; what majority would be needed to count as a telling one - is 5%+1 sufficient on a constitutional issue as important as this?; ... .  However, for better or worse, the political parties have decided to treat the result as binding.

Why should Parliament debate something and hold a vote that could potentially overturn the will of the people?  Is the will of Parliament paramount, or is the will of the people.

The referendum was a vote on a broad principle and intention; what will emerge during negotiations is a more detailed and authentic picture of what that change in future direction will mean in practice.  I don't see a strong case for ending the democratic process because minds will change as new information and insights come to light.  There has to be a mechanism for the will of the people to be expressed when we know the detail and we are more confident in the projections.   

There is a difference between a betrothal and a marriage. A betrothal indicates an intention but it is not binding and the space between betrothal and marriage gives the lovers time to reflect and get to know each other better and hence the opportunity for get-out if it becomes clear their original intention was unwise.  This seems sensible to me

[Hope]

A betrothal indicates an intention but it is not binding and the space between betrothal and marriage gives the lovers time to reflect and get to know each other better and hence the opportunity for get-out if it becomes clear their original intention was unwise.  This seems sensible to me

I would suggest that the triggering of the Article is the 'betrothal' not the referendum.  The latter is simply the people saying we want this move investigated.  Remember that negotiations can't officially start until Article 50 is actually triggered (though I am sure that there have been discussions about negotiations going on since the moment the result became known).

[torridon]

I would suggest that the triggering of the Article is the 'betrothal' not the referendum.  The latter is simply the people saying we want this move investigated.  Remember that negotiations can't officially start until Article 50 is actually triggered (though I am sure that there have been discussions about negotiations going on since the moment the result became known).

Maybe that's right.  But it doesn't stop the May government treating it as an irreversible done deal whatever transpires.  Given that May was a mild remainer, you have to suspect that she see the Brexit bandwagon as a vehicle with which to rout UKIP and Labour.